There was something sinister in the way the US government responded to latest Iraq proposals for key changes to be made to the draft of a joint security pact, which, if accepted, would enable American forces to stay for 36 more months after the UN mandate expires at the end of this year.
Last week the US announced that it would shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan.1 if the Iraqi government did not sign the final draft on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). In addition, the top US military commander in Iraq listed 10 areas of potential cutoffs that would adversely affect the country’s economic and educational sectors, according to Tariq Al-Hashimi, Iraq’s vice president. Expressing shock, he said Iraqis would look at this as “a matter of blackmailing.”
He is right. There is no other way to describe it. The Bush administration has decided to apply this kind of crude and direct pressure to “convince” the Nuri Al-Maliki government to accept the draft in its present form and sign it so that Washington can avoid a mountain of legal and political problems once the UN mandate expires on Dec. 31.
For the Bush administration, which after the presidential elections is transformed into a caretaker government, clinching a deal with the Iraq government has now become the No. 1 priority. For President George Bush it will secure a modest, but important, achievement in the last days of his presidency.
The Iraq debacle has stigmatized the Bush era and has overshadowed the most catastrophic national security crisis in America’s modern history, 9/11. Failing to get the Iraqi government to sign SOFA in the coming days will spell disaster for America’s efforts to make something out of its four-year misadventure in Iraq. If by New Year’s Eve, the agreement has not been signed, then US presence in Iraq would be illegal. This is why the British are also seeking a similar understanding.
US threats to the sovereign government of Iraq is full of irony. But one can appreciate the sense of urgency that is driving the Bush government. On the other hand, the Iraqi leadership knows that it is taking a high-risk gamble by pushing the Americans against the wall. The gamble might work and the US could agree to last-minute changes to the security deal in a manner that would be acceptable to Al-Maliki and his Cabinet.
What makes the current stalemate almost funny is that both sides know that they cannot afford to alienate each other completely. The Iraqi government finds itself between a rock and a hard place, with growing internal pressure for a clear path spelling out a deadline for an American troop departure, and a clear sense of fear of what that might mean for the future of the country.
The president of the local government of Iraq’s Kurdistan Massoud Barzani has announced that if the US-Iraq security pact was not signed, his autonomous region would welcome US troop presence in the form of military bases. Such a development has further polarized the Iraqi Parliament, which Al-Maliki ould need to approve SOFA. He is already feeling the heat from his Shiite coalition partners, while Hashimi, who is a Sunni, has said that Iran is pressuring the government not to sign the pact.
Playing the Kurdistan card now could be viewed as another form of pressure, or blackmail, by the US. It is shocking that Washington is using such dirty tactics to dictate its will over the government of a country it “helped” liberate and put on the road to democracy.
If the United States is guilty of blackmailing an ally and a friendly country, then what other measures will it use against an enemy? Only few years ago Bush bragged about making Iraq a model of democracy in the Middle East. But if the democratically elected government in Baghdad is guilty of anything today, it is of enforcing its mandate to safeguard the sovereignty of Iraq and protecting its national interests.
We do not know yet the full text of the proposed pact between the two countries, but the latest proposed amendments from Baghdad center on the matter of judicial immunity of US troops and private contractors stationed in the country. As it stands, this appears to be the major issue of contention between the two sides. It could be that Iran, Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr and others are using the problem to prevent a final adoption of the agreement.
A collapse of talks between the Iraqi and US governments will not appease all sides. Few of Iraq’s neighbors want a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq. Iran would certainly stand to benefit from such a development. Iraq’s Arab neighbors would rather see a prolonged US retreat that would allow the central government to take charge of the country’s borders and national security. Russia has already hinted that it would back an extension of the UN mandate if America fails to secure a deal with Baghdad within the remaining time.
The Iraqis could also be buying time to see who will replace Bush in the Oval Office. Obama and McCain policies differ on Iraq and Baghdad, as well as Tehran. They could be waiting for the results of the elections before they could decide their next move.
By all accounts, the US blackmail of the Iraqi government has eroded confidence in US role in Iraq even further. To threaten to leave Iraq at the mercy of terrorists and the specter of civil conflict is something that negates the entire logic, which the Bush administration had carefully constructed, behind one of the biggest American invasions into a foreign country in the past 40 years.
Even if the Iraqi government is forced to accept an unpopular military pact with the US, it will be a matter of time before the agreement is denounced by the people of Iraq. Americans are enamored of their own history but learn nothing from their experiences in foreign lands. By the end of the day, it is “The Ugly American” saga all over again.
— Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist based in Amman
