NEW YORK PEACE NETWORK Alert #183

Dear Peace Advocate,

Even with elections and fraud charges to feed the gossip-mill, the talk of Washington all this week has been Monday's signing by President Bush and Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki of a "final" agreement on a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq. Neither Bush nor Maliki actually want the U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Bush remains committed to permanent U.S. control of Iraq, its oil, and its strategic location for U.S. military bases. Maliki’s government would not likely survive the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The text of the agreement is replete with references to Iraq’s sovereignty, respect for the Iraqi constitution and laws, etc. But there is no enforcement capacity, and given the unequal balance of power between the two sides, there is little doubt that those references are designed to placate Iraq’s overwhelmingly anti-occupation population. In the end, the agreement is designed to permit U.S. troops to remain once the United Nations mandate ends this year, and may begin the process of establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

The agreement references a “time-horizon” for U.S. withdrawal by 2011, but doesn’t indicate a serious U.S. commitment a full withdrawal of all troops. It allows the U.S.-friendly Malaki government to “invite” the U.S. to stay indefinitely to train and support Iraqi security forces. In this context, “support” could mean any military action the Pentagon wants to carry out.

As to the issue of accountability for U.S. troops or contractors, immunity largely wins the day. The U.S. maintains legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces and civilian contractors, if they are on-duty, which is determined by the U.S. The document gives Iraq jurisdiction only over U.S. contractors who commit crimes against civilians while off-duty.

U.S. bases also remain unchallenged. According to the agreement, the U.S. is to submit a list of all “installations and areas used by the U.S. forces” for the purpose of “being reviewed and agreed upon by both sides,” but again, given the balance of power between the two sides, this is just another rubber stamp.

Finally, the agreement does nothing to end or even curtail U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil. It states the U.S. will continue its current role in “protection arrangements” for Iraq’s oil and gas production “and their revenue.”

There is strong opposition to the agreement in Congress but that opposition is primarily focused on the exclusion of Congressional input and approval by the Bush administration, rather than the substance of the terms. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis demonstrated in the streets of Baghdad in opposition to the agreement earlier this week. They were asking for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and opposing any long term agreements with the United States.

In signing the agreement, President Bush ignored both Congressional demands for its proper role in debating and approving such an important foreign policy measure and specific prohibitions in the 2008 Defense Authorization Act against setting up permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Which brings us to the importance of next week's elections. We need a Congress that will stand up to the Executive and exercise its proper role in shaping international affairs. We need a President who will take responsibility for waging peace.

In your five minutes for peace this week, please take the most important step you can take all year – vote! The polls are open on Tuesday, November 4th, from 6:00 am until 9:00 pm. To find your polling place, click here. Bring others with you, and use the Peace Action Voter Guide.

Thank you for everything you do.

Mai Gad
Peace Action Fund of New York State
info@panys.org