The negotiations for a long-term Iraqi-American security agreement to replace the existing UN mandate have reached, according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an impasse. Quoth al-Maliki:
“We have reached an impasse, because when we opened these negotiations we did not realize that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept.”
“We cannot allow US forces to have the right to jail Iraqis or assume, alone, the responsibility of fighting against terrorism.”
The BBC reports:
“The Americans want to maintain military bases and, it is reported, to keep control of Iraqi airspace. They also want immunity from prosecution for their own forces and for US contractors, a proposal which Mr Maliki said Iraq ‘rejected totally’.”
This is how the Iraqi government repays the blood and treasure we have lost in those desert sands?
I am pretty immune to outrage over Bush these days; in part because his days are numbered, but also because it is exhausting to maintain a sense of outrage. But this story pisses me off.
1) How badly has Bush managed Iraq? How utterly stupid are these Republicans? This conundrum of our ostensible ally acting, in large part, like an enemy – cozying up to Iran, refusing the terms of a new agreement – is sickening. What the fuck are we doing there if we are not wanted?
2) The agreement itself is a mistake. Just read this op-ed by Karl E. Meyer in the New York Times. The short version? The new agreement is startlingly similar to the disastrously failed 1930 British treaty with Iraq.
3) The agreement is carefully worded so as not to be a treaty that will require congressional sign-off. Bush is doing this to avoid certain rejection and saddle the next administration with a bum legacy.
The man is a dishonorable stain upon our country. January 20 can’t come fast enough. We can only pray that the prosecutions begin shortly thereafter.