Opinions | Columnists
Iraq must take its own decisions
The idea that the US could impose permanent bases against the will of the Iraqi people is fanciful, to say the least.
- By Amir Taheri, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:01 June 25, 2008
- Image Credit: Luis Vazquez/Gulf News
It is more than five years that Saddam Hussain is gone, and his regime replaced by governments elected under the supervision of the United Nations. And, yet, Iraq remains subject to most of the harsh conditions imposed by the UN, under Chapter 7 of its charter, when Saddam invaded Kuwait 18 years ago.
This paradoxical situation is the fruit of a messy compromise under which the US-led coalition forces are allowed to remain in Iraq with UN approval. That approval, secured after the invasion and renewed on an annual basis, runs out at the end of the year.
Unless it is renewed once more, which is far from certain, there would be no legal basis for the presence of US and allied troops in Iraq. This is why Baghdad and Washington have been negotiating a new deal under which the coalition forces would remain at the invitation of the Iraqi government.
The broad outline of an agreement was worked out at a meeting between the US President George W. Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki last November. Details, however, remain to be worked out through intense negotiations that are already four months behind schedule.
It is clear that the 145,000 American troops still in Iraq will not, indeed cannot, be withdrawn by the end of the year. Getting out is always harder than going in.
The troop build-up for the war in 2003 took nine months to complete. To take the troops, and their heavy equipment, out could take twice as long, provided Iraq is peaceful and its government cooperative.
With the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, the US and its allies ceased to be occupying powers, almost three years ago. Now they will lose their status under a UN mandate. So, what will the status of US troops be at the end of this year?
It is almost certain that Bush is not seeking a formal military alliance with Iraq. Such a proposition, though supported by some Iraqis, is opposed by significant segments of Iraqi opinion.
It could divide the Iraqi political elite at a time when it needs cohesion and unity. In any case, a US Senate controlled by the Democrats is unlikely to ratify a military pact negotiated by Bush.
Thus the claim made about Iraq being sucked into a network of military alliances, recalling the controversial Baghdad Pact of the 1950s, is misplaced.
In recent years, US defence thinking has moved away from formal long-term alliances and towards what is known as "the coalition of the willing", that is to say case-by-case arrangements with foreign nations in response to specific threats.
Currently, the US has formal alliances with 26 countries, all members of Nato, and specific arrangements for military cooperation with over 120 others.
In fact, of the 193 members of the United Nations, a staggering 131 either are formal allies or have some military agreement with the US.
One argument used by those who want the US to leave Iraq as fast as physically possible, thus leaving it exposed to the threat posed by its enemies, is that an American military presence would undermine Iraqi sovereignty.
However, as already noted, two-thirds of the members of the United Nations host American military personnel, albeit in varying numbers.
The US maintains over 700 full bases and more than 3,000 other military facilities across the globe. The latter include hundreds of so-called "lily-pads", military facilities that could quickly be transformed into operational bases ready to use in case of war.
None of the countries where the US maintains bases or other military facilities, from United Kingdom to Japan, and passing by Germany and Turkey, feel that their sovereignty is undermined.
The Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) hosted more than 500,000 US and allied troops for decades. Taiwan and South Korea regard an American presence as an insurance policy against dangerous neighbours.
Kosovo, the world's newest nation-state, is desperately trying to persuade the Americans to stay as guarantors of its hard-won independence.
In any case, in recent years American strategic thinking has moved away from fixed bases in foreign countries. A programme of shutting down bases started in 2002, de-commissioning over 100 bases, mostly in Europe and Asia.
But will the Americans try to keep some bases in Iraq?
In 2004, the number of US bases of all shapes and sizes in Iraq reached almost 200. A year later, it had fallen to 105, as a programme of handing over to the new Iraqi army got under way. Since then, a further 28 bases have been transferred to Iraqi control, along with 10 of Saddam Hussain's 22 palace compounds.
As things stand, it seems the US is planning to reduce the number of its bases even further, possibly ending up with just four in 2010.
The largest is the multipurpose Camp Victory near Baghdad Airport, built with the latest design and equipped with ultra-modern material.
In a sense, the three other bases, at Talil, south of Baghdad, Al Assad in the Anbar province, and Qayyara near Erbil in the northeast, are complementary to Camp Victory. US troops will also be used to protect the 12 booster stations of the sophisticated Central Iraq Microwave Communication System for some time.
Military presence
It is up to Iraq's elected leaders to decide whether they still need an American military presence as an insurance policy. If they sincerely think so, they should say so openly and forcefully.
The Iraqi people should be fully informed of the contents and the form of the negotiations under way. They should also be reminded that the US has never tried to impose its military presence on unwilling hosts.
In 1966, General Charles De Gaulle asked the Americans to close their bases in France and leave. The US did so with top speed, although withdrawing tens of thousands personnel involved complex logistical issues.
In 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi demanded the closure of one of the United States' largest bases in the Mediterranean region, the Wheelus. Again, the Americans complied, despite the fact that Libya intended to transfer the base to Soviets.
Since then, the Philippines (1999), Saudi Arabia (2002) and Uzbekistan (2006) have demanded that the US close military facilities and withdraw its personnel. In every case, the US has complied.
The idea that the US could impose permanent bases against the will of the Iraqi people is fanciful, to say the least. In every case, bases used by the US are leased for fixed periods, renewable with mutual agreement.
What Iraq needs to worry about is not bases that, in any case, cannot be temporary. Far more important is the role that the US intends to play in Iraqi politics.
So far, the US has acted as a full partner in virtually all major decisions taken by Iraq's new leadership. It has also acted as an arbiter among various Iraqi communities and political factions.
The US cannot, and should not, continue to play those roles beyond the next Iraqi general election. New Iraq must take its own decisions and develop its own mechanisms for resolving communitarian and political conflicts.
In the meantime, Iraq must decide whether it wishes to remain under Chapter 7, and nurse its illusion of sovereignty, or to arrange for hosting the coalition at least until after the next general election in 2009.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.
Share this article
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Tough love
What ways do you use to discipline your child?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Dissenting neighbours
The cultural and political divide between Indonesia and Malaysia widens
-
Striving for peace
Hasib J. Sabbagh has worked for the betterment of the society
-
Mr Consul General, you're out of line sir
Is Mr Otsuka representing Japan in the UAE?
