Engel: Permanent Bases Would Technically Be Iraqi With U.S. ‘Tenants’ As ‘A Face Saving Device’»

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/07/engel-permanent-bases/

NBC’s Engel: Permanent Bases Would Technically Be Iraqi With U.S. ‘Tenants’ As ‘A Face Saving Device’»



On Thursday, the UK Independent’s Patrick Coburn reported on “a secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad” that “would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely.” According to Coburn, the deal result in American soldiers being stationed on permanent bases in Iraq:

Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

On the same day, NPR’s Diane Rehm asked NBC News Middle East correspondent Richard Engel about the report. Engel said that as part of “a face saving device,” the bases would technically be Iraqi and “U.S. troops would reside on them as tenants”:

ENGEL: That’s the question, is it permanent bases or is it not, and the details of this have not been published. The U.S. and Iraqi officials I’ve spoken to say they would not be U.S. permanent bases in Iraq, they would be Iraqi bases and that U.S. troops would reside on them as tenants and may even have to pay some sort of nominal rent, so there would be a face saving device. What’s also trying to be worked out is what’s the exact U.S. mission. Would they be able to conduct independent operations without the advice and consultation of the Iraqi government and that has been a point of contention.

Listen/read transcript at link~

After Coburn’s report was released, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, tried to quash talk of permanent U.S. bases, telling reporters that “it is not going to be forever.” But Crocker also spoke of a situation that could comport with Engel’s “face saving” description, claiming that “there isn’t going to be an agreement that infringes on Iraqi sovereignty.”

[WWolf]

1. I didn't know George Orwell did documentories...

Have we always been at war? I can't remember. Wasn't there a brief period during the carter administration where we weren't at war with anybody? I'm sure someone must have knowledge of a short period of time during which the US was in a state of relative peace with the world. There seem to be a lot of history majors round here, somebody must know...

[Aristus]

2. “there isn’t going to be an agreement that infringes on Iraqi sovereignty.”

If U.S. troops are immune from Iraqi law, that is a gross infringement on Iraqi sovereignty! :grr:

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Makes sense - that's how they do American bases in the UK

They are officially "RAF Fairford" or whatever. This means they can get the same exemptions from civilian British law than British military bases can, without having potentially embarrassing debates about it in Parliament. In practice, the US military has complete control over them.

[Robbien]

7. But can we drop bombs on the UK? Does the UK give up its

sovereignty to the US? Iraq is being asked to agree to those conditions.

This guy is flat out lying. He is counting on no one, especially reporters, actually reading what the agreement says.

Sistani is pissed about the agreement and he is pissed that the US is refusing the release of Iraqi oil income held in trust by the US until and unless Iraq signs the agreement by July 31st.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I'm not sure which guy you're saying is lying

It's Engel who's calling it a face-saving device - that they're trying to make the bases look more Iraqi than they'll actually be. I don't see that as a 'lie'. It seems highly likely they'll do that, since they do that even in countries where they don't go around shooting and bombing the populace.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. What are we still doing in the UK?

:shrug:

[spanone]

4. bullshiite

[babylonsister]

5. It is bullshit, but are you surprised this could be how the US

gets around having permanent bases there? As I've been told for years, it's all in how they frame it.

[screembloodymurder]

6. It's not going to be forever,

just till the oil runs out.

[Disturbed]

10. Maybe Busholini will be the "Uniter" in Iraq.

Perhaps the Sunnis & Shiites will unite to kick the US/UK Occupiers out of their country?

The Iraq Security Deal

* grants the U.S. long-term rights to maintain over 50 military bases in their California-sized country

* allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government

* allows the U.S. to conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting with the local government

* allows U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi without consulting with Iraqi authorities

* extends to U.S. troops and contracters immunity from Iraqi law

* gives U.S. forces control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft.

* places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under American supervision for ten years

* gives the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for ten years

* gives foreign oil companies 90% control of Iraqi oil

[Solly Mack]

11. Not even the bases in Europe are considered "permanent"

long term...but not permanent....if a base exist 100 years it's not permanent because 100 years isn't an infinite amount of time...100 years isn't forever....just seems that way (with good reason).

That's how the military/government looks at it.

That said...

America can't bomb Germany or conduct "missions" within German communities...though it can use the bases for staging/invading/deploying (must inform German government). Bases in Germany are NOT considered US soil - not by any stretch of the imagination or technicality. There are "joint" (German army)training missions with the full knowledge/consent of the German government.

America CAN'T arrest Germans. America can't "police" Germany. Americans ARE NOT immune from German law. The SOFA in no way protects soldiers from facing a German court of law should it be decided that they will face German law. Mostly, though, military law/US federal law handles offenses by US soldiers. US civilians working/living in Germany can and do face German law all the time. They can be tossed out of the country as well by Germany. Germany can also insist (with compliance) that a soldier be removed from the country....if the soldier stays in Germany, then Germany retains jurisdiction and they will face German law...hence, kicking them out of the country to face US military/federal law back in the states.

America does have to inform the German government of certain FTX's (field training exercises)

to name a few things

For anyone to pretend that Iraq is being offered anything remotely like the same kind of SOFA or "deal" that America has with actual SOVEREIGN countries would be pure bullshit - that no amount of "framing" could change. There is nothing "face-saving" about "rent" when your sovereignty and the lives of the people are the real costs.

“there isn’t going to be an agreement that infringes on Iraqi sovereignty.” <--- BULLSHIT

America has been "infringing" on Iraqi sovereignty since the invasion..and the "deal" being "offered" is little more than a continuation of the occupation

[Disturbed]

12. Most Iraqis will revolt against this Imperial move on them.

Iraqis know what the Busholini Regime is about.