The White House’s criticism of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is muted nowadays. And no wonder. Last week President Bush and Iraq’s leader agreed to a cozy “declaration of principles." This permits the US to keep permanent “long-term” military bases within country -- expected to house up to 50,000 personnel -- and opens the door to American control of Iraq’s oil sector -- illegal under the 2008 US Appropriations Act, which expressly forbids such control.

The same act and the 2008 Defense Authorization Act preclude the US from establishing “any military installation or base for the purposes of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq."

The deal, which was effected without the approval of the US Congress or Iraq’s Parliament, gives grist to the mill of those who claim the invasion of Iraq was primarily carried out to further Washington’s regional hegemony and cement its control of Iraq’s rich oil and gas resources. It’s couched in terms of “two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests” -- laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.

From the standpoint of the Bush administration it’s a coup. It facilitates an eventual showy withdrawal of US troops, which will please the public and quiet Democrat demands, while all the while an unspecified number of soldiers, Marines, airmen and intelligence officers will remain behind fortified walls. The voters will then be conned into believing Iraq is old news.

But what is the benefit to Iraqis and why the long-term US presence?

One would imagine that most Iraqis would like their country back, thank you very much. To witness one’s homeland being bombed, invaded, and ravaged by foreign armies and mercenaries must be deeply painful and humiliating for a proud people. If this unprincipled “declaration of principles” were to be voted upon it would no doubt end up as waste paper.

Why would Iraqis want armed-to-the-teeth Americans around for the foreseeable future smashing in their doors, manning checkpoints and telling them what to do? It is surely the presence of a foreign force that is fueling the insurgency, an argument that is supported by the British pullout from Basra and the relative stability that followed.

Why would Al-Maliki give the go ahead? Does he believe Iraqis need to be protected from each other or does he think his country is threatened by predatory neighbors? I suspect neither.

Moreover, bitter sectarian divisions emerged after the 2003 invasion and provided oil and gas revenues were evenly distributed throughout all provinces and a process of forgiveness and reconciliation implemented, it’s probable the country could be re-glued.

The most likely scenario is Maliki has been somehow coerced. It gets worse. The Iraqi leader is also set to ask the United Nations to renew the multinational forces’ mandate in Iraq for another year, which translated means “US forces” since the so-called coalition of the willing has been decimated with even Britain and Australia preparing to quit.

Shouldn’t he instead be appealing to the UN to call for US withdrawal, especially when almost everyone agrees the invasion was illegal and based on false pretences in the first place?

The firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and his followers believe so. They are said to be seething over the prime minister’s capitulation effected without their consent. Iraq’s Vice President Tarek Al-Hashemi is equally scathing, while the tribal heads of Anbar province who have recently been cooperating with the Americans are threatening to change allegiances.

Another point of contention within Iraq is the controversial oil law, which the US government is asking the Iraqi Cabinet to pass into law as swiftly as possible. Again, no wonder, as it allows foreign oil companies to develop the country’s oil fields and retain a substantial proportion of revenue for decades to come.

It’s known that Iraq possesses a wealth of untapped reserves so private foreign corporations have much to gain and little to lose. And in light of the Bush/Maliki “declaration of principles” it’s probable that most of the foreign oil companies awarded exploration permits would be American.

Could this provide a clue as to why the US is so keen to maintain a military presence? Perhaps it isn’t the Iraqi people that require protection but rather oil fields and pipelines. Here it’s worth recalling those post-invasion days when the US military stood by as the country’s ministries and museums were being ransacked while ensuring the security of the Oil Ministry and oil installations.

Iraq’s Oil Minister Hussain Al-Shahristani, who fled Iraq after being jailed by Saddam for refusing to help build a nuclear bomb, says final approval of the oil law is just months away. He welcomes the law as an instrument to encourage foreign investment.

It will do that all right but while most other oil producing countries have painfully rid themselves of foreign control and interference it begs belief that the Iraqi oil minister seems to be opening his arms to a plan that, on the face of it, is tantamount to theft and smacks of a bygone imperialist age.

In fact, the Kurds have beaten him to it. They’ve already had a yard sale, signing 15 exploration contracts with 20 overseas oil companies.

It looks as though elements of the Iraqi government are virtually saying to their nation’s occupiers, “Our house is your house. Stay as long as you like and help yourself to the fridge." I don’t know why and I suspect neither do the Iraqis.