The Iraqi Perspective on the Principles

The Blogger's Roundtable today featured an interview with Dr. Ali Al-Dabbagh, the Government of Iraq Official Spokesman. He spent about a half hour talking about the Iraqi government's perspective of the recently signed declaration of principles between the US and Iraq governments. I don't have the transcript yet, but it was an interesting topic and I wanted to get it out this week rather than next week. I'll update this post when the transcript is available. I will say this, he was very prepared to talk on a number of issues across the board. I was most interested in talking about the security aspect, specifically the potential extension of US military presense indefinitely at permanent bases in Iraq.

1. Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.

2. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups, at the forefront of which is Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation, and destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance, and defeat and uproot them from Iraq. This support will be provided consistent with mechanisms and arrangements to be established in the bilateral cooperation agreements mentioned herein.

3. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces to enable them to protect Iraq and all its peoples, and completing the building of its administrative systems, in accordance with the request of the Iraqi government.

In response to an earlier question by Spencer Ackerman, Dr. Al-Dabbah said that no one was discussing the issue of permanent bases. I wasn't so convinced by the answer, so I pushed the subject again. I asked the good doctor if he was anticipating any push-back by the Shi'ite legislators when the principles were discussed in Parliment, in particular the issue of an indefinite US military occupation in Iraq. He immediately pushed back, stating that there were Shi'ite extremists who wouldn't like it and there were Sunni extremists who wouldn't like it, but they were in a democracy now, and he was confident that it was going to pass (at least by a simple majority).

Q: Sir, I work with the Armchair Generalist blog. I'd like to ask you if you're concerned at all about the possibility that Shi'ite legislators, in particular those perhaps sympathetic to al Sadr, might view these principles as a permanent occupation by U.S. forces. I understand you had said that no final decision's been made by the -- on permanent basis but do you anticipate some pushback from the Shi'ite legislators in Baghdad?

MR. AL-DABBAGH: There is nothing to call a Shi'a legislator but they might be [have] different opinion [with] such a treaty and the agreement. You may find Sunnis also objecting. It is not limited to a Shi'a and this is -- it is -- this is a democracy. It's not -- the Shi'a are extremists. You have Sunni extremists as well who are going to object -- who are ready for such but we believe that majority of Iraqis are believing that we do need an agreement between two sovereign government. The present resolution and the mandate of the United Nation is being implemented on Iraq, is being imposed on Iraq who lost the invasion which they -- Saddam had in Kuwait, and the performance of such tyranny of Saddam Hussein makes -- make the United Nation impose such resolution on Iraq.

Now it's totally different. Iraqi people feel that they have the right to say no. They have the right to amend such a treaty and such a agreement because they are a sovereign country and they are seeking to have a permanent and a strategic relation with the United States. Definitely United States should have a confidence that Iraqi people are accepting this one without any pressure -- without -- it is their choice in order to last and to have a lasting agreement and work for both the benefit and -- for benefit of both Iraqi and American people.

It was an interesting discussion - it proved to me one thing, that politicians are the same, no matter if they're working in Baghdad or Washington DC. They know how to talk around a topic they don't want to discuss plainly. I was more irritated by two of the "correspondents" in our group - one radio show host asked whether the doctor was confident that a new adminstration (meaning Democrats) would continue to back his government (his diplomatic answer was sure, both sides of the aisle want a restored and stable Iraq). The other bozo was from American Forces Press Service - he asked (and I'm not kidding), "would you like to express your appreciation to all the US service men and women who want to know their service counted?" Al-Dabbah said some nice things about sacrifice and Iraq's appreciation. What a maroon (the AFPS guy). More later.

UPDATE: Here's the story and the transcript. 

Comments

[James]

I think point two is most telling. Government that have a genuine plurality don't need foreign assistance against a rebellion. Of course they blame it all on "outsiders." What government wouldn't? But all the numbers say that the vast majority of captured and killed insurgents are Iraqi and despise the government not least for their dependency on foreign occupiers.

In other words, the long-term agreement gives the insurgency a valuable recruiting theme. It confirms the opinion of those in the ME who have said all along that Iraq was the "first domino" in an American/Israeli plot to subjugate the Islamic world. It ensures that US forces will be tied down in Iraq for years to come.

[rmwarnick]

I read on Talking Points Memo that the agreement is null and void unless the Iraqi Parliament ratifies it by a two-thirds majority. This is in contrast with the USA, where Bush says he can sign us up for a permanent presence in Iraq without Senate approval because it's not a treaty, only an agreement.

[John of Argghhh!]

I'm sorry I missed this one. But you are right about the shill questions from the AFPS guys when they show up. They're jarring and out of place.

Like the plants at the debates. Same problem, different venue.