The negotiations and the continuous and expanding nature of America's plans for its bases are an important reminder of just how little things are going to change whoever moves into the White House next January. The American military juggernaut in the Middle East has now built up such momentum that it appears no amount of public concern or budgetary incapacity can rein it in. New contracts being let out now will not be completed before the new president is well established in office. And the current tally of military facilities is reportedly no fewer than 106 bases of all sizes across the country.

'Temporary' is the key word in the American lexicon of base negotiation. It's a word that lulls opponents of the war in Washington and nationalists in Baghdad into believing that the Iraq story will not end the way the Bush administration intended when it set out on the Iraq adventure: with a string of super bases in Iraq which would allow it to police the Middle East on the ground without needing to worry about the host government; that it would be able to protect Israel, foil Iranian plans for Shia dominance of the region, protect some of the richest oil reserves on the planet and provide a jumping off point for military operations into Central Asia.

There is no evidence to support an argument that U.S. strategic objectives have changed. Indeed, it could be argued that the requirement for strategic capabilities in Iraq is all the more important as the intentions of Tehran continue to concern the U.S. administration. Yet in its negotiations with the Iraqis and in statements in Congress the administration always maintains that there is nothing permanent about the American military installations so far constructed. That is pretty hard to credit when you consider that the biggest of them, Balad air base north of Baghdad, is a 16 square mile fortress which houses anything up to 40,000 ground troops and boasts of daily air movements that are a match for Heathrow and resembles, by the few accounts of the base that have appeared in the American press, a small U.S. town plumped down in the desert.

Yet this base, and perhaps up to 199 others, are only under 'temporary' occupation by the American military. That word has little meaning in the context of the U.S. forces and the current negotiations with the government of Iraq. When asked by Senator James Webb for a definition of a 'permanent' military base, the State Department had trouble coming up with an answer but a Defence Department spokeswoman admitted that the government had no definition for such a concept – hence the U.S. negotiators' use of the term 'temporary' without specifying any timeframe.

This stance harks back to the U.S. military's promise during the Vietnam war to hand back all military facilities within six months. The bases were indeed, nominally, handed back to the government of South Vietnam then swiftly leased back to the American military. Of course the great majority of American bases around the world are covered by conditions which amount to extraterritoriality though in some areas, notably the Far East and particularly Japan, those provisions are being eroded as public resentment rises at the spectacle of military personnel frequently escaping appropriate sanction for crimes against the local population.
No such concerns attend the Iraqi negotiations. Underpinning the actions of all American personnel, military and civilian, in Iraq is Order 17 which was instituted by Paul Bremer when he was Washington's viceroy and before he handed 'sovereignty' over to the Iraqis.
Had the British imperialists been as literally and legally minded as the Americans they might have come up with something similar when they ruled most of the world. To say that Order 17 is broad-based would be to massively understate the case. As the law of the land it ensures that all foreigners involved in the occupation are granted 'freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq' and that their vessels and vehicles shall not be subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the Iraqi government. All camps and other facilities are given a free ride in terms of the use of electricity, water and other utilities while all private contractors are to have complete immunity to prosecution throughout the country.

So far it is not clear whether the Americans have demanded that they be allowed to conduct military operations against other countries from Iraqi territory but even if they have not made that specific request they already seem to have a head start: they have apparently demanded control of all Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet and the right to bring troops in and out of the country without informing the local authorities. They also seek to conduct military operations on Iraqi territory without telling the government and the right to detain anyone they see fit for security reasons. U.S. forces will also have a tutoring role for the next 10 years for all Iraqi security institutions such as the defence, interior and national security ministries.

In Europe, American control of air bases is at least given a fig leaf with the name of the base preceded by the name of the appropriate air force. In Iraq the U.S. military doesn't believe in the power of and respect for, local nationalisms. Perhaps that is a significant part of the reason that they are in such a mess at the moment.

In any event Iraq stands as an object lesson for any nation that might have something that the Americans might want. Do not expect anything that looks remotely like respect for national sovereignty: the new American empire doesn't have much time for it.

David Watts is Commissioning Editor, Special Reports, 'The Times'.

top