Burying the SOFA (WA) text: Mission Accomplished?

21 thoughts on “Burying the SOFA (WA) text: Mission Accomplished?”

1. I am more convinced by the argument that “burying” the publication of the English text in the States was motivated by embarrassment, than by a devilish tactic to get the Iraqi parliament to accept a plan against their interests.
   The fact is that there are strong forces on both sides which are opposed to the agreement. On the Iraqi side, all those who say that signing any agreement with the US, on any terms, is a grave error. And on the US side there are many who do not want to be bound by the conditions that their own negotiators accepted.
   It’s a tough one though for the US to get out of. The deadlines are pretty clear. Yes, I would think in between times, there will be some cheating on the US side. I’d be surprised if an American or a contractor ever went before an Iraqi court. No doubt consultation will not as carefully done as it should. Getting round the deadlines, however, is much more difficult. It will not be easier in three years time, when other world problems and priorities will have overtaken Iraq.

2. Not publishing the text of the SOFA apparently suits Senator Obama just fine. He doesn’t want to be part of the process in any capacity.
   Why should the Bush administration share anything with the country, or with a do-nothing Senate or Senator? There is no Constitutional requirement to share administrative documents with anybody, is there? Treaties require Senate advice and consent, but administrative documents do not. Obama in particular doesn’t want any part of the SOFA, he wants to maintain the concept of executive privilege into the next administration when HE can use it.
   Now Bush has apparently dumped the “Strategic Framework Agreement” in favor of “Withdrawal Agreement.” A political move by Bush, no doubt, so the Repubs can (as an option) claim in a year or two that President Obama is countermanding a Repub withdrawal agreement when he issues (as he will) an executive order mandating a continuation of “some” US forces to stay in “some” Iraq bases for “some” time because of US security requirements because the US can’t retreat from its obligations to maintain peace and stability in the ME because blah blah blah.
   So in this sense it doesn’t matter what the so-called SOFA says. It’s an administrative document that will be negated by another administrative document, which is the way it should work in a foreign policy which is under de facto martial law during an endless global war in which the Commander-in-Chief should have full authority to Keep Us Safe.
   Put another way: The Congress, representing the American people, have been either a minor part or no part of military stationing, maneuvers and even wars sine 1945. So this “SOFA” exercise is simply part of the machinations of the US Security State mandated in 1947 by Paul Nitze, Harry Truman etc. Did anyone expect change? Fuggedaboutit.

3. Yesterday, December 2nd, Philip Giraldi published a piece on antiwar.com that, in part, stated “On Thanksgiving Day itself, by a narrow margin, the Iraqi parliament voted for a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the United States that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. The neoconservatives have predictably declared that the SOFA represents victory, even though they have not read the document itself, which no one outside of the administration has seen in its English version. Leaks of the Arabic version and the horse-trading that preceded the ratification suggest that the final agreement was something less than a triumph for the Bush White House.
   I have also read some interesting, if highly speculative comments, regarding possible differences between the arabic and english versions, with ambiguities/differences ripe for exploiting.

4. I’m not sure I would agree with Don Bacon there. The US has made a public commitment, which all the world has seen.
   It may be that technically speaking, on internal US bases, Obama could simply abrogate the agreement. But that would have a severe effect on the US reputation abroad. I thought, and actually believe, that one of Obama’s objectives was to repair US foreign relations. If you want to do that, you don’t abrogate commitments your country has made. Even if he is actually committed to continuing an “imperial” policy.
   I could believe that there are more political struggles to come, and perhaps a renegotiation. As I mentioned earlier, there are powerful forces on both sides who are opposed to the agreement. I don’t see, though, that the Iraqis would settle for less in the future. The rage in Iraq over the “colonial” text offered in June was enormous, and for Obama to offer a new “sub-colonial” text is likely to provoke similar reactions. Remember that it was not really Maliki negotiating, but all those behind him who wouldn’t accept less.
   For Obama to get what he is said to want would require really nifty diplomatic footwork, which the US is not known for, and for the nationalist movement to have been only a flash in the pan, which I don’t think, after all that the US has done in Iraq.
   My guess is that Obama will in the end accept something close to the present agreement. The US has too many other problems, and the price of continuing the war in Iraq is too high.

5. Nobody’s talking about continuing a war in Iraq. In any case that war was over long ago — it’s been the brutal occupation that’s been the problem.
   Obama has never said he would remove all US forces from Iraq, only “combat forces”, and he will naturally do all in his power to retain a US presence there.
   There’s no way that, willingly, a US president would hand over the keys for Balad Air Force Base, for example, to the Iraqis. It is a huge installation built at great cost and enjoys a key position (re: the Caucuses, Iran) in the arc of bases the US has built and is building from Poland to Pakistan. Balad is currently the second busiest airport in the world, after Heathrow. No way.
   Barack “the finest military on the planet” Obama is not going to be the president that gives away a gold-plated air base to a Muslim fundamentalist government closely allied with Iran. No way.
   Idealism does have its limits. Anyhow, Obama is not an idealist, he’s a conciliator who believes in American Exceptionalism in its neoliberal form, which is indisginguishable from neoconism. He’ll talk to you before he bombs you, that’s all.

6. There’s no way that, willingly, a US president would hand over the keys for Balad Air Force Base, for example, to the Iraqis. It is a huge installation built at great cost and enjoys a key position (re: the Caucuses, Iran) in the arc of bases the US has built and is building from Poland to Pakistan. Balad is currently the second busiest airport in the world, after Heathrow. No way.
   Well, tough luck for the US taxpayer, then. A waste of money. The US can destroy it, and I imagine they will. Having built a nice airbase is not a reason for sending me more trillions after those wasted.
   And, by the way, the war is not over. Even Bush called the invasion “major operations”. The not-so major operations continue, and will continue until until such time as the US withdraws, and the war comes to an end.

7. كلّ من ساعد المحتلّين على ما يريدون فسوف لن يغفر الله له ذنبه هذا، ولن تسامحه الاُمّة العراقيّة المظلومة، ولا الحوزة العلميّة المباركة، ولا أيّ مسلم ذي وجدان وضمير يؤمن بيوم الحساب.
   
   “Reaffirmation that it is forbidden to accept the security agreement”
   

8. It is possible that, with no other option, the US might destroy the installations it built. I recall a similar situation in Panama in the 50’s where I saw that the US had done that, rather than turn over facilities to Panama.
   We’re all on in precarious territory when we try to predict the future. If we could do that we belong at the racetrack, not on a political blog. But I think in this case it’s a slam-dunk. oops

9. Sorry for the erroneous injection of a supplementary ‘me’ in my last post of 01:54. The sentence should have read: ‘Having built a nice airbase is not a reason for sending more trillions after those wasted.’

10. NY Times, Dec 3 2008
    Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

11. I don’t doubt, Don, that if the US negotiators in Baghdad had been able to extract an agreement to continuing bases, or vague language that could permit them, they would have done so. The fact that they couldn’t speaks volumes.
    The US negotiators made a mess of the negotiations from beginning to end, through unrealistic evaluation of the Iraqi position. They thought Maliki was on his own, playing chicken, ‘getting out of his baby-walker too early’, as they said in September, whereas in fact he was only reflecting widespread Iraqi fury at the threat to their sovereignty. JHM’s post only confirms.
    Obama might be able to turn the situation around, in order to guarantee US “imperial” interests, but the situation is far gone in the opposite direction. Some clever diplomacy is going to be necessary, and I wouldn’t be optimistic.
    Obama continues to be unrealistic. The South Korean model of peaceful occupation he proposes has not the hope of a snowflake in hell. The only evident solutions are full war, or full withdrawal. The situation is polarised.
    I don’t exclude the possibility that Obama may come up with a new idea. It’s not been seen yet, though.

12. History is replete with examples of people who failed to follow the dictates of the ruling order. Ngo Dinh Diem comes first to my mind if only because I just happened to be in Saigon on November 1, 1963 when he was overthrown by surrogates of his former US patrons and killed in a US-made armored personnel carrier.
    Then, here at home, there were Martin, Robert and John.
    Regarding South Korea, it’s a good example of Pentagon primacy. SecDef Gates made a unilateral decision earlier this year that North Korea is no longer a military threat. Does that mean that US troops can be withdrawn? Oh, no. It means that Korea can be an accompanied tour, which means extensive investment in family housing, and recreational and educational facilities for military families in The Land of the Morning Calm. Heard anything about that? Of course not. Gates announced it on his aircraft while on a foreign tour. It wasn’t covered much by either the MSM or alternative news sources.
    We don’t have self-government, we have Pentagon government.
    In all this discussion, it’s said that Obama, the new Decider, will decide. I’m sure the point will be made to him that he’d better “decide” the right way. As some wag once said, he’ll be escorted into the smoke-filled room, the little screen will come down, and . . .(see para 2 above)

13. I too, Don, have personal stories to recount. I was much in Iraq in the 1980s. And today I met a delegation of Iraqis from the University of Baghdad, in company of French diplomats. I was going to ask them what they thought, but the vibes were pretty evident.
    I have no doubt of the US position; it is as you describe it. The US is not omnipotent; there is a tendency to forget that.
    The question is how the head-to-head conflict is going to be resolved. At the moment, the US has the choice of ‘full war’, that is continuing military occupation of an unwilling people, which implies a continuing garrison of 130,000 or so, or ‘full withdrawal’, the meaning of which is evident. Helena has often warned us that colonial occupations don’t work any more.
    Obama has implied that the full occupation can’t be afforded any more. So what compromise is going to be reached, given the Iraqi fury at the threat to their sovereignty? It’s not easy.
    One first possibility to weaken the Iraqi position is for the US to provoke more splits among the Iraqis. Divide and conquer. The first bombing of the Golden Dome in Samarra in 2006 worked well, but the second effort in 2007 failed to have an effect. The recent bombing campaign in Baghdad, which also has been suggested to have been intended to provoke splits, also has had no effect. I don’t see much success for future bombings; the Iraqis are too used to it.
    The Iraqis are not very much united, other than in their determination to be rid of the US. The argument to be played upon would be the greater fear that many Iraqis have of Iraqi soldiers than those of the US. That is seen as a temporary situation, but could be exploited by the US to their profit.
    Otherwise I don’t see it as easy to convince Iraqis to accept US military presence on an ongoing basis. (I don’t speak of the Kurds, whose position is quite different. According to what I heard today, there are now border controls, with demand for passports, between Baghdad and Erbil). The Iraqis have too strong a memory of the British experience, they are not going to repeat it.
    So it is up to the US to come up with an acceptable formulation, if they can.

14. Alex,
    What’s the point of your “personal story?” I missed it. There must be a pony in there somewhere.
    You are wrong in your continued claims that an occupation is a war.
    From the DOD Dictionary:
    occupied territory: Territory under the authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force. The term is not applicable to territory being administered pursuant to peace terms, treaty, or other agreement, express or implied, with the civil authority of the territory.
    from Merriam-Webster (no DOD definition):
    war: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
    Your choice of two options in Iraq, full war or full withdrawal, is a classic false dilemma, that is a situation in which only two alternatives are considered when in fact there are other options. You fail to consider a range of options and exhibit a tendency to think in extremes, which is called called black-and-white thinking.
    The simple fact is that (1) the New Iraq Army can’t survive without US logistical, transportation, medical and air support and (2) the US will never abandon its expensive infrastructure, especially its air bases.
    The Iraqi leaders will be bought off, what the Iraqi people want doesn’t matter (the US model) and Iran will be weakened by further sanctions, low oil prices and probably a naval blockade if not more.

15. ولا الحوزة العلميّة المباركة،
    This lie.
    Sistani and other Iran loving Sayed approved the SOFA after Iran changing their position from SOFA although it’s not loud as they like be as we saw starting talking about SOFA. This is just nonnecae talk that Al-Hawza not accpeting SOFA. May I suggest to you to read this article will tell you what Hawza playing in old day 1933 with Bristish pact and today with US SOFA Pact
    العراق بين انتدابين ..الماضي الذي لم يمضي

16. “there are now border controls, with demand for passports, between Baghdad and Erbil”
    Perhaps you know also that since several years ago there have been some sort of “border controls” between Barzani country and Talibani country. So, as with the fabled Sunni Shi`a split, the Kurdi Arab split is not exactly as it is understood (or rather misunderstood) in the west.

17. “there are now border controls, with demand for passports, between Baghdad and Erbil”
    Perhaps you know also that since several years ago there have been some sort of “border controls” between Barzani country and Talibani country. So, as with the fabled Sunni Shi`a split, the Kurdi Arab split is not exactly as it is understood (or rather misunderstood)

18. Don, a further reality is that the New Iraq Army™, which is and so far has always been really only a proxy occupation force, would have relatively very little to do if the occupation were ended.
    I agree with you that there will be attempts to buy off the so-called Iraqi so-called leaders. What the Iraqi people want is less than irrelevant. However, the Iraqi people have also never accepted foreign domination, and so there will always be an “insurgency”(sic), which will always of course, manage to be dominated by “foreign fighters” aka that really dangerous guy known in America as Al Kayduh, who will justify a continued U.S. presence on those lovely little typical middle American towns Bush has built all over Eyerack.
    One of the things Obama used to repeat early on in the campaign was that as president he would not built permanent basis in Iraq. He did not ever, to the best of my knowledge, say he would not use them. And of course he would not build them because he would not need to build them. George Bush took care of that for him.

19. Don
    My view of war is that it continues as long as both sides are unwilling to give up. That is true in Iraq. I don’t see any need to accept DoD definitions; indeed you pour scorn on them yourself in your later post on COIN 101.
    Your choice of two options in Iraq, full war or full withdrawal, is a classic false dilemma, that is a situation in which only two alternatives are considered when in fact there are other options.
    You have failed to read what I wrote. I spent considerable time explaining why it is that the intermediate option doesn’t work. Particularly the option of removing “combat troops”, as favoured by Obama. You have to have peace and acceptance to do that. And that doesn’t exist.
    I have spent considerable time this last couple of days with a group of Iraqi academics from Baghdad, who are visiting us, in order to find out what Iraqis are thinking post-SOFA/Withdrawal signature. It seemed to me they were pretty well 100% for US withdrawal, with the exception of the one who’d been appointed under the US occupation, who was more muted but not different.
    It seems to me that your point of view, that the US can simply buy off the Iraqis and the permanent bases will continue, has no explanation of the fact that the US signed the SOFA/Withdrawal agreement in its present form. Why did they not “buy off” the Iraqis already, if the Iraqis can be bought? It seems to me evident that the text represents the best conditions that the US could get.
    It is quite obvious that there are many in the US who are or would be in revolt against the agreement, including Obama himself. He hasn’t understood either why it was signed. Maybe when he understands better, and when he wants to settle the economy, and push on with his surge in Afghanistan, he will have second thoughts about abrogating the agreement.

20. Alex,
    I do not pour scorn on DOD definitions but on Pentagon language and behavior. Perhaps you don’t get it. Current language is important as it relates to the traditional meanings of words, as Shirin wrote so eloquently. It’s mainly important because it reflects on the character of the people being wrongly characterized.
    I failed to see where you “spent considerable time explaining why it is that the intermediate option doesn’t work” but never mind, because your implication that the present brutal military occupation HAS worked is wrong. Ask your Iraqi friends.
    You shouldn’t have needed to talk to Iraqi academics to learn that Iraqis overwhelmingly favor US withdrawal. There have been various polls over the past years that have shown exactly that, and it is primarily a result of the brutal US military occupation which now is being curtailed by General Odierno.
    Regarding the SOFA, I firmly believe that the failure of the US (Democratic) Senate, now under the de facto control of Obama/Biden, to advise and consent on the (executive) agreement (which ought to be a treaty) is to allow, as I wrote above, Obama to unilaterally modify it later. Timing is everything, and now is not the time, obviously.
    Your description of what Obama does or does not understand is charming, but the simple facts are as I stated above and Obama will have to face them, if he hasn’t already as I believe he has. I believe that Obama is committed to remove combat troops, but how many even he probably doesn’t know at this time, nor need he know. The Pentagon will tell him. There will still be a considerable US military presence as I stated above.

21. Don
    I have no particular desire to answer you, as you and I are basically on the same side.
    Current language is important as it relates to the traditional meanings of words, as Shirin wrote so eloquently.
    It is well known that Pentagon language is Orwellian. Nothing new there. I am more interested in understanding the political reality.
    I failed to see where you “spent considerable time explaining why it is that the intermediate option doesn’t work”
    Your commentaries on JWN date back to the last few months; I don’t know whether your reading goes back further. I have been saying since early July that the intermediate option doesn’t work. Obviously at that time, everybody thought that Maliki would accept anything the US had to propose, and they weren’t much interested in my warnings.
    your implication that the present brutal military occupation HAS worked is wrong.
    I never said nor implied that. I’ve been a defender of Iraqi, and particularly Sunni (because those are the people I know), interests since 2004 on this line.
    You shouldn’t have needed to talk to Iraqi academics to learn that Iraqis overwhelmingly favor US withdrawal.
    You failed to read my post. I included the phrase “post-SOFA/Withdrawal signature”. If you have better knowledge of what Iraqis think at the present time, then tell us.
    I believe that Obama is committed to remove combat troops, but how many even he probably doesn’t know at this time, nor need he know. The Pentagon will tell him. There will still be a considerable US military presence as I stated above.
    That is the difference between you and me. You think that the US is free to make its decision. You believe in American exceptionalism. I say no, the US is very constricted. Which brings us back to the question you didn’t answer:
    It seems to me that your point of view, that the US can simply buy off the Iraqis and the permanent bases will continue, has no explanation of the fact that the US signed the SOFA/Withdrawal agreement in its present form. Why did they not “buy off” the Iraqis already, if the Iraqis can be bought? It seems to me evident that the text represents the best conditions that the US could get.
    I don’t know whether the Iraqis will be able to enforce what they have persuaded the US to sign. We will have to see. In my view, they are not far from that. A new “surge” is impossible, and the Iraqis know it. A new government might be put in place, either through election or coup de force. Can one rely on passivity from the Iraqi people?

Comments are closed.