Hasan Abu Nimah

There were reports last week of an agreement between Iraq and the United States on how to regulate the status of foreign - mainly American - forces in Iraq following the termination of the UN mandate they were retrospectively given after invading the country in 2003.

The reports proved to be inaccurate. There are still serious points of disagreement between the two sides.

One issue is the time limit. Iraq wants all foreign forces out by 2010, while the US wants its forces to stay a year longer, until 2011. But their departure then would be conditional upon favourable circumstances, most likely to be determined by the Americans themselves. This could mean an open-ended stay.

A second point of contention is over immunity from prosecution of US soldiers while on Iraqi soil. Iraq seems to be willing to grant them immunity inside their bases only, but not the unlimited immunity demanded by the Americans, and that is exactly reminiscent of the concessions that colonial powers used to demand of countries in this region.

The third point is directly related to the oft-repeated Washington claim that a “premature” withdrawal could be perceived as a defeat, even a victory for the “terrorists”. This sounds unusual too. When Iraq was invaded, there were no terrorists there. They only emerged as a result of the war and the extended occupation that followed. Does that not create a weird dilemma: if terror is the Iraqi response to aggression and occupation, how could more aggression and more occupation win over terror?

To understand the complexity of the situation one needs to cast a fresh look at the long list of war goals that kept changing with time and adapting to circumstances and convenience. But even so most of them have supposedly been met.

Iraq is now free of any weapons of mass destruction, regardless of the fact that they did not exist in the first place. That meets one war aim. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party meets another. The Iraqi people were liberated from oppression and dictatorship and that meets a third significant war goal. Democracy has been introduced and that meets the last of the goals relating to Iraq itself. Why would foreign forces want to stay in Iraq then?

Supposedly, to continue the war on terror, and this is the crux of the matter. It is simply like starting a fire to justify dispatching the fire brigade to the scene. Not only that, but in order not to call the fire engines back to base, the fire needs to be kept raging by any means.

In Iraq, the real war started just as President George Bush declared “mission accomplished” in mid-2003. It is hard to imagine how anyone can fail to see the direct link between the raging violence and ongoing instability in Iraq, and the continued presence of a large occupation force there.

Haggling over a withdrawal timetable can only indicate the existence of a hidden agenda for an endless stay.

“Even under the best case scenario, some US troops would probably remain in Iraq and other parts of the Persian Gulf, as a way of demonstrating US resolve to defend the oil producing countries in the region,” writes Leon Hadar (Antiwar.com, August 20) adding that “Washington would still maintain its strong support for Israel”.

It is quite frightening to witness the increasing resemblance between the occupation in Palestine and that in Iraq. The talk of moving out from cities and urban centres to military bases in Iraq under the envisaged agreement which would legitimise the foreign forces presence sounds familiar.

The Oslo accords also aimed to secure the approval of the occupied Palestinians for an endless occupation, with locally established forces handling matters of security to relieve the burdens of the occupier. Although the Oslo scheme has not been abandoned after 15 years of persistent failure, even deterioration, it is rather strange to see the same methods now applied in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan. All these three centres have become rich sources for spreading instability all over the region, and promoting violence all over the world, rather than becoming the models for democracy, stable government and prosperity. Foreign forces may have to remain entangled there forever in pursuit of the futile aim of ending terrorism because their presence is actually promoting it.

And if Iraq is truly sovereign, as the United States claims, why should there be any negotiations?

If Iraq wants the US troops out by 2010, should they not leave by that date? When you have to “negotiate” with your occupier over the length and terms of the occupation then you are definitely not sovereign. Eventually occupation becomes self-justifying as the Palestinians have learned.

The US agreed to allow Israel to repackage its long-standing oppression of the Palestinians as being a necessary part of the “war on terror”, so that any and all Palestinian resistance to Israeli oppression is simply “terrorism” and the Israelis are justified in staying forever until the Palestinians “fight terror”.

Will Iraqis find themselves in the same situation three, five or ten years from now?

This pattern of behaviour by the United States and Israel has further antagonised hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims and undermined any American claims of support “reform”, “democracy” and “peace” in the region.

In none of the major “war on terror” theatres - Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel, Somalia and many others - do conditions look any more promising.

The US, which took the lead following the monstrous attacks on its people and cities on September 11, 2001, has lost many of the allies who initially committed themselves to that cause. Over the years, the “war on terror” has caused so much injustice and harm to unrelated individuals and states that it lost its credibility and sense of purpose.

Rather than eliminating terrorism, the net result has been more instability and violence and much more hostility towards the United States than existed on September 10, 2001, or September 12, 2001.

There is little reason to expect that a new US administration will change that policy. But if the United States does not decisively abandon the damaging agenda of occupation, intervention and political manipulation of the region, things will only get worse.