How to Leave Iraq, and Stay There
Published in El Comercio
(Spain) on June 10, 2008
by Enrique Vázquez (link to original)
(Spain) on June 10, 2008
by Enrique Vázquez (link to original)
Translated from
by Dorian de Wind.
Edited by .
If all goes according to Washington’s plan, President Bush will be able to say, without lying, that the invasion of Iraq has ended well, in military and geostrategic terms, which is what is most important to a superpower with global interests.
Such a plan consists of signing as far ahead as possible-- if it can be done, in July--a security and cooperation agreement with the Iraqi government. One that will give the U.S. Army the possibility to stay in the country indefinitely and which will replace their role of occupier with that of partner, when the UN mandate regarding the American presence--which was once presented by both parties as final--expires at the end of the year.
Yesterday, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, had to listen to Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Jamenei, say that of all the problems facing Iraq, the major one is the U.S. interference in its affairs through its military and security power. Al-Maliki was ending a difficult three-day stay in Teheran, where he lived in exile for many years, and where he tried very hard—it seems in vain—to convince his Shiite neighbor that it has nothing to fear from such an agreement, and that he will never permit that Iraq be used as a base from which to launch an eventual U.S. attack—something that no one is ruling out today.
The accuracy is superfluous because Washington would not put its partner Iraq in an untenable situation and because it is sufficient to control its airspace (which is stated in the agreement), to provide air-to-air refueling capabilities for its bombers, if necessary. And, furthermore, there are other ways to execute such an operation at the margins of Iraq.
Nor is it reassuring to hear the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, say that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. This is resolved by placing such bases in a temporary “lease” status, as is the current model elsewhere. Teheran simply wants that the agreement not be signed, because it is perceived there as a ploy to install its adversary’s military forces in its own neighborhood.
Curiously, the Iranians’ hope is based on many people in the U.S. Congress believing that a lame duck Bush must not sign an agreement that will tie he hands of his successor. It is known that the Democratic candidate is proposing a phased withdrawal from Iraq, until only an anti-al Qaeda force remains. Or, at least, so says Barack Obama.
Such a plan consists of signing as far ahead as possible-- if it can be done, in July--a security and cooperation agreement with the Iraqi government. One that will give the U.S. Army the possibility to stay in the country indefinitely and which will replace their role of occupier with that of partner, when the UN mandate regarding the American presence--which was once presented by both parties as final--expires at the end of the year.
Yesterday, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, had to listen to Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Jamenei, say that of all the problems facing Iraq, the major one is the U.S. interference in its affairs through its military and security power. Al-Maliki was ending a difficult three-day stay in Teheran, where he lived in exile for many years, and where he tried very hard—it seems in vain—to convince his Shiite neighbor that it has nothing to fear from such an agreement, and that he will never permit that Iraq be used as a base from which to launch an eventual U.S. attack—something that no one is ruling out today.
The accuracy is superfluous because Washington would not put its partner Iraq in an untenable situation and because it is sufficient to control its airspace (which is stated in the agreement), to provide air-to-air refueling capabilities for its bombers, if necessary. And, furthermore, there are other ways to execute such an operation at the margins of Iraq.
Nor is it reassuring to hear the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, say that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. This is resolved by placing such bases in a temporary “lease” status, as is the current model elsewhere. Teheran simply wants that the agreement not be signed, because it is perceived there as a ploy to install its adversary’s military forces in its own neighborhood.
Curiously, the Iranians’ hope is based on many people in the U.S. Congress believing that a lame duck Bush must not sign an agreement that will tie he hands of his successor. It is known that the Democratic candidate is proposing a phased withdrawal from Iraq, until only an anti-al Qaeda force remains. Or, at least, so says Barack Obama.