On Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told reporters in Amman, Jordan that negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements between the United States and Iraq had "reached a dead end" after U.S. negotiators demanded "control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors." BBC reports the disagreement between Maliki and U.S. negotiators "goes to the heart of the immensely sensitive issue of who is actually in charge in the country: the Americans or the Iraqis." "The Iraqi demands are unacceptable to the Americans, and the American demands are unacceptable to the Iraqis," Maliki said. "Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty." The disposition of the negotiations will determine the future of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Last week, members of the two ruling Shia parties leaked details of the U.S. proposal, telling McClatchy News that the United States is "demanding 58 bases as part of [an] agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely."
Hopefully, the Iraqis will NEVER give in to the American demands, which should totally destabilize the region and radicalize whatever moderates were "undecided" as to whose interests the United States works on in the region. The US is fighting tooth and nail to become the actual ruler of the region, militarily and economically. Politically? Well, the plan is to use clout on that front.
Establishing bases in Iraq from which to project American power through theAt least somebody agrees with me:
region has been one of the underlying goals of the war from its inception, and
partially explains why the United States has been willing to accommodate parties
such as Maliki's Da'wa and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (who
are close to Iran but also support U.S. goals), at least in the
short term. Conservative pundit Dick Morris spoke for much of the pro-war
community when he told Fox News that, after 4,000 American casualties in Iraq,
"I want bases out of that."
If the administration gets its way, American troops would be stationed in theAs for national sovereignty, that's a thing of the past. Ahhhh, Empire..... it hurts so good... if you're from Richistan, that is....
heart of the Middle East for the foreseeable future -- likely fueling continued
extremist anti-American sentiment and political unrest. This highlights the
tension between the U.S. goals of a democratic Iraq and a continued U.S.
military presence in Iraq. For that presence to be legal and legitimate, it must
be subject to agreement by the Iraqi government. But it is extremely unlikely
that any Iraqi government that agrees to an extended U.S. presence -- especially on the terms the U.S. is currently demanding --
will be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people.