Iraq SOFA Update
| Sun Nov. 16, 2008 8:38 AM PST
IRAQ SOFA UPDATE....This took longer than I expected, but the Iraqi cabinet has voted almost unanimously to approve the latest draft of a security agreement that governs the continued presence of U.S. troops:
All but one of the 28 cabinet ministers who attended the two-and-a-half-hour session voted for the agreement and sent it to Parliament for consideration
....The draft approved Sunday requires coalition forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by the summer of 2009 and from the country by the end of 2011. An earlier version had language giving some flexibility to that deadline, with both sides discussing timetables and timelines for withdrawal, but the Iraqis managed to have the deadline set in stone, a significant negotiating victory. The United States has around 150,000 troops in Iraq.
....In a crucial development, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, indicated on Saturday that he would support whatever decision is arrived at in Parliament as representative of the will of the Iraqi people. Shiite officials who met with the ayatollah said eh found the latest draft acceptable, if not perfect.
Approval by parliament is likely to follow fairly quickly. This is good for the Iraqis, who really do need the U.S. presence for a little while longer; good for George Bush, who's getting a slightly longer timetable than Barack Obama would have negotiated; and good for Obama, since this essentially makes his decision to withdraw into a bipartisan agreement. After all, conservatives can hardly complain about Obama following a timetable that was negotiated and approved by Bush. Obama has enough on his plate already, and taking this issue off the table ought to be a considerable relief to him.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
This is good for the Iraqis, who really do need the U.S. presence for a little while longer
I can't help but think the same thing I thought several years ago: this is good for the Shiite faction that we chose to take sides with several years ago.
But good for Iraq as a whole? Who could possibly answer that question? We have been a disaster for Iraq and our continued presence is just guesswork, like it always was. The only part that isn't guesswork is that we are taking primary responsibility for what happens as long as we are the dominant military presence.
I would prefer to get out more quickly.
. . . conservatives can hardly complain about Obama following a timetable that was negotiated and approved by Bush.
Well, that's a perfectly logical conclusion, but if the past 15 years have taught us anything, it's that the VRWC doesn't behave logically.
Just wait. If Obama withdraws troops from Iraq according to the letter of this SOFA, right-wing blowhards will continue to yell 'capitulate', 'appeasear', 'Defeatocrats' and all the rest. The fact that Bush signed off on it as a lame duck won't mean anything (and likely won't ever enter the discussion).
This is a good, if unexpected development. Things would have become dicey from a legal and moral perspective once the current SOFA expired on Dec 31. We will probably never know for sure, but I would think this was made possible because Obama won. Were John McCain about to become president, the ability of the Iraqis to brush aside concerns that the US would try to subvert the terms inorder to maintain an indefinitely long occupation wouldn't have been possible.
There is still the concern, on both sides, about how stable Iraq will be as the US security prop is removed. That was why greater flexibility would have been desirable.
Submitted by Victor Tremblay (not verified) on Sun Nov. 16, 2008 10:12 AM PST.
This is good news indeed. BO will not have to spend too much political capital on Iraq at home and will be able to focus on other topics.
However this is by no mean a time to rejoice for Iraqis. The next few years will be vital to ensure stability of the country. Now that everyone knows when Americans will be gone, the fight for power in post-USA Iraq will begin (or continue). Let's hope it will be a fight in the parliament or in debates and not fighting in the streets.
I forget which Iraqi official said a few days ago that they had been avoiding signing because they didn't believe the Bush administration would live up to its part of any agreement, but when Obama was elected, they figured he'd do whatever the US signed to do.
Does this mean that Dick Cheney will continue to rake in the dough from his Defense Contracts or is that something that Obama does have control over? I have no doubt that a "presence" is not necessarily a big number of troops or bases and that Obama will reduce that number as rapidly as possible. Our overly large Defense Budget is going into some "User Friendly' hands from the taxpayers viewpoint but "very unfriendly hands" from the Pentagon's point of view! Believe me, there is going to be a big change in the military budget and policies under an Obama Administration despite what George, Dick, and the Pentagon want!
This victory belongs to the American peoples resistence, and the Iraqi peoples resistence and has very little to do with Bush. Bushcos' goals have shown a continuous failed policy throughout the holyland. He is not your average person on the street who was lied to by Bush and Blair or the Iraqi on the street who has lost family killed and maimed causing generations of hurt and anger. It is not the refugees that are sick and starving by the millions and pray to all that is holy that the American Occupation ends immediately to end their daily misery. It is also a victory of sorts to the worlds peoples who demonstated by over 30 million in the streets prior to the illegal aggressive war, invasion and occupation. It is a victory also to the anti-fascist united front that says through the U.S. judge Jackson who chaired the Nuremburg Trials , that the planning and doing of aggressive war is the supreme international crime on the entire planet as it sets in motion all other crimes high, low, big and small. It is a victory for the U.S. constitution where its says that international treaties is the supreme law of the land, and thereby reflects the feeling of the American people and the anti-fascist side. It is a victory almost for IVAW to the extent that the troops will be sent home. IVAW has three points, 1) withdraw all troops immediately, 2)pay reparations, 3) protect medicare and give care to the veterans which is sadly lacking from Bushco. However, there is war crimes involved nationally and internationally in the killing of more that a million innocent civilians, and in the torturing, and targeting of civilians and prisoners of war. The war crimes will be set for trials both internationally and nationally. In this whole affair U.S. Imperialism is most guilty of breaking world and national laws to the point of lawlessness and destruction of the living green ecological organic life tree on the planet. All in all, this is not fully dealt with yet , and the future promises to become more real and believable by the election of Obama and the liberation anti-fascist side. This is only a light at the end of the tunnel.
good for George Bush, who's getting a slightly longer timetable than Barack Obama would have negotiated
Say what? Last I checked, Bush was saying that accepting a timetable at all was tantamount to surrendering to the terrorists.
Caving in the face of such an absolutist position -- even if it was an absurd and untenable one -- just makes Bush look like a fool yet again, and more, it insulates Obama from the inevitable Dolchstosslegende the right wing is cooking up -- after all, Bush agreed to withdraw the troops.
The problem with the SOFA is that it sets US withdrawal from cities for the summer of 2009. Iraq elections for parliament are scheduled for December of 2009. Presence of US troops has kept Iraqi security forces on their good behavior. Pulling US forces out of the role of "protecting the population" gives a free hand to a Shiite winner-take-all majority rule faction to use security forces to shape sectarian electoral victory. Summoning the patience to guarantee security for another six months, through the December 2009 parliamentary elections, would make a big difference. Compare the parliament that would be elected under the current influence of sectarian militias with the parliament that would be elected if the US provided sufficient security for millions of refugees to return. The largely middle class refugees would support a cosmopolitan tolerant democratic Iraq. The new Iraq such a parliament would create would be a rebuke to religious fanaticism worldwide. It would also demonstrate that the US has the fortitude to follow through with a serious strategic objective, a stance that would win support from potential allies in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
