The Iraq ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ is the product of Iraqi resistance
The ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ is surprisingly good in many respects, but this is because the Iraqi people have shown they will not stand for an enduring imperial occupation.
By Richard Seymour on Friday, November 21st, 2008 - 941 words.
It is interesting to observe the unfolding dynamics around the US-Iraqi ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ that is currently teetering between success and defeat. First of all, the SOFA agreement – being negotiated in considerable secrecy by the Bush executive with little consultation and no thought of seeking Congressional approval – makes some interesting concessions. If the reports are accurate, it does effectively put a time limit on the occupation (2011), prevents the US from using Iraq as a base to attack another country, and does not allow permanent bases. Moreover, quite unusually for such agreements, it says that US soldiers who commit crimes outside American bases are liable to be prosecuted under Iraqi law.
Of course, the UN mandate expires on 31st December so this gives the US an extra couple of years. It is a face-saving move for the U.S. Moreover, any limitations on the ability of occupation forces to act are strictly conditional on the willingness of the U.S. to adhere to its agreement, which in turn depends on American perceptions of likely resistance to its actions. Finally, it does allow US troops to remain militarily active to hunt down ‘terrorists’ and ‘Al Qaeda’ and so on – which basically means that America’s immense firepower will probably be trained on Sadrist forces and Sunni insurgent groups. And even when US troops are being drawn down there are no provisions, so far as I have seen, to get Blackwater mercenaries out of there. Their contract with the State Department runs out in April, and given the number of criminal investigations going on into the organization, a large number of Democratic legislators want their executives in cuffs.
Obama is typically bland: he says he wants to gradually withdraw the contractors, but certainly not ban them or anything bold like that. And, of course, the draw-down is tactically linked to the plans to increase the troop commitment in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, if the provisions are as reported, then the pact already expresses a substantial defeat for the occupiers. It would be preferrable to see the last soldiers and diplomats chased out of the country, a la 22 Gia Long Street, Saigon. But the occupiers would never have proposed the exit terms they have without years of armed struggle and political resistance. The US, despite the self-congratulatory language of the ’surge’ preferred by the Bush administration, had to cut a series of ignominious deals with armed resistance forces that basically demonstrated the complete inability of the occupiers to remain without the acquiescence of leading resistance forces.
The Sadrists, quite rightly, reject the agreement, and have been threatening a return to full-scale armed resistance. That would mean ‘Iraqi security forces’ being chucked out of Sadr City and other ’strongholds’ for a start, which would be a serious setback for both the Maliki government and the occupiers. Maliki was humiliated last April when a combined Iraqi and US assault failed to take Sadr City or conquer Basra. They had to negotiate a ceasefire with Moqtada on both occasions. The Sadrists probably surmise that the U.S. is in a panic, anxious to get some sort of accord before transition to the Clinton Obama executive, and before the UN mandate expires. So, either the US can run out the clock trying to obtain an agreement and thus be force to leave in an awful hurry, or it can stay on in perpetual limbo and risk an uprising, or it can make further concessions in the hope of winning over the Sadrists and Sunni opposition groups.
At any rate, the only losing position for Iraqis at the moment is a quick agreement. The more the anti-occupation parliamentarians disrupt any quiet transition to SOFA, and the more Iraqis stage mass protests against the occupation, the more the US will be forced to concede. Why give them an inch when the occupiers’ presence in Iraq is a clear and present danger to Iraqis? Present them with a breathing space now, and they will regroup, find ways to violate the agreement, expand their scope of activities, and stretch out the occupation even longer.
It is no surprise, obviously, that the Kurdistan Alliance, Maliki’s Da’wa Party, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council support the agreement and want it to be endorsed as quickly as possible. They two want an extra couple of years to build up their forces and more thoroughly dominate the repressive apparatus of the state. Maliki has reportedly been developing new militias to support his position in the ‘new new Iraq’. The Kurdish peshmerga are advancing into non-Kurdish areas of Iraq and set up checkpoints. This expansionism is usually accompanied by ethnic cleansing, the better to consolidate their hold over the territory. So, they are also playing for time. Moreover, the upcoming January elections may substantially weaken some of the currently dominant parties, and they will want to assure their stake by guaranteeing a US presence before then. And there will be infighting between the different parties and militias over the future settlement.
The ISCI wants to create a federal region of 9 provinces in the south, which it believes it could dominate. The Da’wa Party is opposed to this. The Basra-based Fadhila wants Basra itself to be given a referendum on autonomy, which both the ISCI and the Da’wa oppose. And the Sadrists, consistent with their Iraqi nationalism, insist on a strong central authority. That is a battle that is likely to be violent, and it is one in which Maliki and his cohorts will want US backing for crackdowns on opposition movements. So, all power to the rejectionists, I say. If the Americans don’t like it, let them eat lead.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Articles by this author
-
Epochal nature of financial crisis must be grasped by unions
The truly epochal nature of this crisis needs to be registered before a proportionate response can be mustered, and I have the sinking feeling that as far as the labour movement is concerned, the last people to get it will be the union bureaucracy
-
Britain's nasty government
At the moment, polls show that the government's strategy is working, and that most people acquiesce in the cuts agenda. I would say 'support', rather than acquiesce, but this would imply that the agenda was being approved rather than met with terrorised compliance
-
Chinese workers kick back
The Chinese working class is on the move: there is a wave of strikes taking place across China, and they're winning. Workers at Honda have won a 30% pay increase in the latest strike affecting that company, while workers at FoxConn have reportedly been offered a 100% increase in 'basic pay' (with strings attached) after strikes and a string of employee suicides
-
George Osborne and UK cuts to public services
However, financial capitalists are fighting hard to limit this, and the signs are that Osborne is prepared to fight their corner. To that extent, the cuts policy points to the continued ability of the financial fraction of capital to assert its hegemony. Especially since manufacturing and services capital is heavily financialised and depends for a considerable portion of its profitability on the City, which redistributes global surplus values to the benefit of UK capital
-
Chutzpah and hasbara
-
Israel's twisted torturing of Gaza
In other words, by the twisted logic of Zionism: Israel can impose a blockade on Gaza that systematically starves civilians, leaves them to die without medicine, destroys their sewage and power systems, leaves them utterly dependent on international aid delivery which it imposes the most grotesque restrictions on; then it can demonise and assault an aid flotilla intended to break the blockade, fire on the residents, murder people in their sleep, the better to deter anyone from attempting to violate its supremacy in Palestine again; then it can manufacture whatever story it requires to force a hostile world to accept its actions, muddy the waters, juggle narratives, befuddle and confuse people, following up one bit of legerdemain with yet another and another, etc; and it can do all this while remaining the perpetual victim (remember Sderot!)
-
Willie Walsh is trying to bust the union
The cabin crew staff, for their part, have been patient and tolerant. They have accepted voluntary redundancies and wages cuts. BA workers have even worked for free when asked to do so. That is a staggering act of generosity toward their employers, an investment in the future of the company, which has been rewarded with outright malice and contempt. It is all the more astonishing when you consider that cabin crew salaries start at £12k a year, which is just on the poverty threshold. They have sought agreement at every stage and have been consistently rebuffed, and their good faith betrayed. They are at the end of their tether, forced to strike action by an aggressive management intent on smashing the union
-
Labourism and the working class
So don't believe the hype - New Labour is not so much dead as undead. Like the zombie banks, it will roll ahead on life support for the foreseeable future, even as it further hacks away at its base, the very support system that keeps it animated. It is not about to emerge from a period of chrysalis as a beautiful, vibrant new life form. The secular trend remains for Labour to increasingly erode its position in the working class, for party identifications to decrease, for exclusively parliamentary politics to become less and less relevant
-
Immigration and the BNP
Strategically, then, one obvious response is to mobilise the anti-fascist vote in the short-term, and combat the broader climate of racism in the medium-term. Long-term, we have to be about rebuilding the Left in those areas, getting workers in the new industries organised, and (re)constructing a radical left-wing electoral challenge to New Labour
-
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan: nothing to do with tulips
If the 'Tulip revolution' wasn't a precise replica of its Georgian and Ukrainian cousins, this revolt is as different as can be. Despite an extraordinarily violent crackdown by Bakiyev, the grassroots insurgency prevailed. Protesters succeeded in taking over police stations, weapons, even winning police over to their side. They have demonstrated that the state does not possess a tight control over the means of violence, and that therefore popular demands cannot be ignored or suppressed. The Social Democrats, despite attempting to take the reins of power, still don't really control the country. If they attempt to control it with violence, they may face the same end as Bakiyev and Akayev
-
Worst. Election. Ever.
This election, then, could hardly be less inspiring. At most, it punctuates the processes leading toward a ferocious class conflict, accentuating one or other facet of it, handing the advantage briefly to one or other force. But of itself, it is hard to see democracy's summit, the conscientious register of public opinion on all vital matters, in this emaciated ritual
-
Wither Europe
Perry Anderson's assessment of European monetary union, in his typically ecumenical The New Old World, was that its results were "inconclusive" but thus far "disappointing" on its own terms. Its benefits, including lower transaction costs and more predictable returns for business producing more investment and superior growth, had been vastly oversold. Growth, far from taking off, initially slowed and only recovered modestly between 2004 and 2007. But something started to take place in late 2007 that has made Anderson's provisional assessment look blithely optimistic