Wednesday August 27, 2008

US occupation now being confronted by Iraqi democracy

MIDWEEK
By BUNN NAGARA

IRAQ began the week by pushing harder for a US military withdrawal, taking the US government by surprise.

In a meeting with tribal chiefs on Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said there would be no security agreement with Washington unless there is an agreed deadline for total US military withdrawal.

The presence of US-led foreign troops in Iraq is based on a UN Security Council resolution that will expire by the end of the year. A new Status of Forces Agreement (SFA) between Baghdad and Washington is therefore needed for the continued military presence.

Until last month, President George W. Bush had been insisting that there should be no fixed timetable for withdrawal, since a pullout would have to depend on “conditions on the ground.” Then he relented somewhat by beginning to talk about a “general time horizon.”

Until Monday, the United States thought there was still no firm agreement, that US “combat forces” would withdraw by 2011 while other US military personnel would remain, and that while US civilian contractors (mercenaries) might be subject to Iraqi law, US troops would remain free from local prosecution.

But the Iraqi premier raised the stakes this week by saying there was already agreement, by which US combat forces should be out by mid-2009, all foreign military personnel would leave by the end of 2011, and nobody would be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law.

That statement drew an immediate denial from Washington. Some analysts said the Iraqi leader must have been trying to assuage a prickly audience, given that he faces more nationalist opponents in provincial elections later this year and a general election next year.

However, other observers noted that in making his stand more robust and less amenable to US wishes, al-Maliki has also made any future compromise with the US position more difficult. The premier must know that himself, besides the point that it would be difficult for him later only if he compromised.

Last week, a senior Iraqi official had already said the draft agreement requires a pullback of US troops from urban areas by June next year, consistent with the prime minister’s statement this week.

It is already something of an open secret that US officials are becoming more frustrated with an ostensibly more nationalist Iraqi government.

The current negotiations for a new SFA were to be concluded by July 31, but still look inconclusive. And even after the terms are agreed, the draft still needs to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament and the US president.

To add spice to the situation, the conditions on the ground within the United States itself include a looming presidential election in November, where the two candidates have different approaches to the issue of a military withdrawal.

Sen Barack Obama has said as president he would pull US troops out in 16 months, roughly corresponding to a mid-2010 schedule with a new presidency beginning in January 2009. But that pledge could yet undergo some “refinement”, as his recent statements indicate.

Sen John McCain has said he is prepared for a long war in Iraq, of a thousand years or more “if necessary.”

In a visit to Iraq last month, it was no surprise that candidate Obama received an indirect endorsement from the Iraqi prime minister.

But rather than Baghdad approximating to Obama’s position, it is Obama who has come closer to the Iraqi stand on troop withdrawal. It is useful to remember that just about every other political player in Iraq is even more anxious than al-Maliki for foreign troops to leave the country.

Ultimately, the premier’s statement this week is more significant for Iraq than for the United States. That he has come round to the majority view of his compatriots is proof of a blossoming Iraqi democracy.

Hawks in Washington hardly expected democracy in Iraq to mean a greater determination to rid the nation of foreign, including US, meddling. They also might not understand that the presence of US military personnel only heightens the risk of militant attacks on these foreign targets and their local collaborators.

A foreign occupation requires not only a political solution, but also understanding of the political basis of insurgency beyond mere military logistics.

News Poll

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs

Latest from StarProperty