Page 2 of
2 DISPATCHES
FROM AMERICA The great land
grab By Tom
Engelhardt
protests by Iraqi leaders close
to the Bush administration. They were angered by,
and leaking like mad about, American strong-arm
tactics in negotiations for a long-term Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would officially
embed American-controlled bases in Iraq for the
long term, potentially tie the hands of a future
American president on Iraq policy, and represent a
sovereignty grab of the first order. (A typical
comment from a pro-Maliki Iraqi politician in that
Post piece: "The Americans are making demands that
would lead to the colonization of Iraq ...")
The growing Iraqi protests - in the
streets, in parliament and among the negotiators -
certainly helped spark coverage in the US. A
persistent and intrepid British reporter, Patrick
Cockburn of The Independent of London, helpfully
broke the story of Bush
administration demands
days before it became significant news in the US.
But most of the credit should really go to
the Bush administration itself, which, despite the
long-term flow of events in Iraq, still wanted it
all. Greed, coupled with desperation, seems to
have done the trick. In all the years of the
occupation, the officials of this administration
have had a tin ear for the post-colonial era they
inhabit. It's never penetrated their consciousness
that the greatest story of the 20th century was
the way previously subjected and colonized peoples
had gained (or regained) their sovereignty.
The administration indicated this, in
2003, with its very dream of garrisoning a major,
potentially hostile, intensely nationalistic Arab
nation in the heart of the oil lands of the
planet. That the building of enormous American
bases and the basing of troops in relatively
peaceful Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War in
1991 led to disaster - think Osama bin Laden -
mattered not a whit to top administration
officials.
It couldn't have been clearer
just how little they cared for Iraqi sovereignty
or pride when L Paul Bremer III, Bush's personal
representative and viceroy in Baghdad, before
officially "returning sovereignty" to the Iraqis
in June 2004, signed the infamous (though, in this
country, little noted) Order 17. As the law of the
land in Iraq, among other things, it ensured that
all foreigners involved in the occupation project
would be granted "freedom of movement without
delay throughout Iraq" and neither their vessels,
nor their vehicles, nor their aircraft would be
"subject to registration, licensing or inspection
by the [Iraqi] government". Nor in traveling would
foreign diplomats, soldiers, consultants, security
guards or any of their vehicles, vessels or planes
be subject to "dues, tolls, or charges, including
landing and parking fees", and so on.
When
it came to imports, including "controlled
substances", there were to be no customs fees or
inspections, taxes or much of anything else; nor
was there to be the slightest charge for the use
of Iraqi "headquarters, camps and other premises"
occupied, nor for the use of electricity, water or
other utilities. And all private contractors were
to have total immunity from prosecution anywhere
in the country. This was, of course, freedom as
theft. Order 17 would have seemed familiar to any
19th century European colonialist. It granted what
used to be termed "extraterritoriality" to
Americans. Think of it as a giant
get-out-of-jail-free card for an occupying nation.
Now, imagine, that, even after years of
disaster, even in a state of discontrol, with
unsecured global oil supplies surging toward $140
a barrel, the Bush administration remained in the
same Order 17 frame of mind. They began their
negotiations with the Iraqis accordingly. Cockburn
(and other journalists subsequently) would report
that they were asking for Order 17-style immunity
for the US military and all private contractors in
the country, as well as the use of up to 58 bases,
even though they evidently "only" had 30 major
ones in the country. (A leading politician of the
Badr Organization claimed that American
negotiators were actually pushing for the use of a
startling 200 facilities across the country.)
They also evidently insisted on control over
Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet (8,839 meters)
the right to bring troops in and out of the
country without informing the Iraqis, and the
right to "conduct military operations in Iraq and
to detain individuals when necessary for
imperative reasons of security", again without
notification to the Iraqis, no less approval of
any sort. They may even have insisted on the
freedom to strike other countries from their Iraqi
bases, again without consultation or approval. In
addition, reported Cockburn, they were attempting
to force their Iraqi counterparts to agree to such
a deal by threatening to deny them at least $20
billion in Iraqi oil funds on deposit in the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Gulf
News reported as well that, under the American
version of the agreement, "Iraqi security
institutions such as Defense, Interior and
National Security ministries, as well as armament
contracts, will be under American supervision for
10 years." This was partially confirmed by the
Washington Post's Walter Pincus, who reported on a
multi-year contract just awarded to a private
contractor by the Pentagon to supply "mentors to
officials with Iraq's Defense and Interior
ministries ... [ who] would 'advise, train [and]
assist ... particular Iraqi officials'."
Had the Bush administration exhibited the
slightest constraint, it might have constructed a
far more cosmetic version of the permanent
garrisoning of Iraq. Officials might have turned
the mega-bases over to the Iraqis and leased them
back for next to nothing. They could have let the
stunning facts they had built on the ground speak
for themselves. They could have offered "joint
commands" and other palliative remedies (as they
are now evidently considering doing) that would
have made their long-term sovereignty grab look
far less significant - without necessarily being
so. But their ability to strategize outside the
(Bush) box has long been limited.
Think of
them as "the me generation" on steroids, going
global and imperial. Or give them credit for
consistency. They're mad dreamers who still can't
wake up, even when they find themselves in a
roomful of smelling salts.
Instead, with
their secret SOFA negotiations, they've attempted
to fly under the radar screens of both the US
Congress and the Iraqi people. They wanted to
embed permanent bases and a long-term policy of
occupation in Iraq in perpetuity without letting
the matter rise to the level of a treaty. (Hence,
no advice and consent from the US Senate.)
Not surprisingly, this episode, too, is
threatening to end in debacle. The Iraqi
leadership is in virtual revolt. Across the
political spectrum, as Tony Karon of the Rootless
Cosmopolitan blog has written, the negotiations
have forced on the Iraqis "a kind of snap survey
or straw poll ... on the long-term US presence,
and goals for Iraq" from which the Americans are
likely to emerge the losers.
The idea of
timetables for American departure is again being
floated in Iraq. According to Reuters, "A majority
of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress
rejecting a long-term security deal with
Washington if it is not linked to a requirement
that US forces leave," and unnamed American
officials are now beginning to mutter about no
SOFA deal being achieved before the Bush
administration leaves office.
The
administration's man in Baghdad, Maliki, has
declared the initial US proposal at a "dead end"
and has even begun threatening to ask American
forces to leave when their United Nations mandate
expires at year's end. (Though much of this may be
bluff on his part, what choice does he have? Given
Iraqi attitudes toward being garrisoned forever by
the US military, no Iraqi leader could remain in a
position of even passing power and agree to such
terms. It would be like stamping and sealing your
own execution order.)
The Sadrists are in
the streets protesting the American presence and
their leader have just called for a "new militia
offensive" against US forces. The pro-Iranian, but
American-backed, Badrists are outraged. ("Is there
sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is
left to [the Bush administration], they would ask
for immunity even for the American dogs.")
The Iranians are vehemently voting no.
Opinion in the region, whether Shi'ite or Sunni,
seems to be following suit. The US Congress is up
in arms, demanding more information and possibly
heading for hearings on the SOFA agreement and the
bases. Democratic Presidential candidate Senator
Barack Obama has insisted that any deal be
submitted to Congress, the very thing the Bush
administration has organized for more than a year
to avoid.
And miracle of all miracles, the
mainstream media are finally writing about the
bases as if they mattered. Someday, before this is
over, Americans may actually see what was built in
their names with their dollars. That will be a
shock, especially when you consider what the Bush
administration has proved incapable of building,
or rebuilding, in New Orleans and elsewhere in
this country. In the meantime, the president
appears headed for yet another self-inflicted
defeat.
Tom Engelhardt,
co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs
the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com.The World According to TomDispatch:
America in the New Age of Empire(Verso,
2008), a collection of some of the best pieces
from his site, has just been published. Focusing
on what the mainstream media hasn't covered, it is
an alternative history of the mad Bush years.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
