by Damozel | A few days ago it looked as if the Iraqis and the Bush administration were nearing an agreement. On Sunday, Moqtada Sadr led thousands in a protest and members of the Iraqi cabinet raised objections. Now--ignoring warnings last week from US officials--the Iraqis have said no.
Ali al Adeeb, the chief of staff of Maliki's Dawa party, said Wednesday that the Iraqi parliament "cannot approve this pact in its current form."
Top U.S. military officials have warned of serious consequences if the agreement isn't signed. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that Iraq's forces "will not be ready to provide for their security" after the current U.N. mandate runs out. "And in that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence," Mullen said.
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA Today: "Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations." (McClatchy)
The Iraqis aren't happy about Mullen's statements.
Reacting to Tuesday's warning from the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh] said in a strongly worded statement that the "Iraqi government is deeply concerned by the statement of Adm Michael Mullen".
"Such a statement is not welcomed by Iraq. All Iraqis and their political entities are aware of their responsibilities and are assessing whether to sign the deal or not in a way that it is suitable to them.
"It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way."(BBC News 10-22)
The Iraqis asked for, and received, a number of concessions that the Bush administration was initially reluctant to grant.
The accord contains a number of American concessions, calling for U.S. troops to withdraw to their bases by June 2009 and to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 — both dates subject to extension, but only if the Iraqi government requests it.
The accord also would allow Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops except when they're on U.S. bases or on military operations, strips private military contractors of U.S. legal protection and reclaims control over Baghdad's "Green" zone, the location of the U.S. Embassy and military headquarters and much of the Iraqi government's headquarters.
[Sheikh Jalal al Din al Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq] said that setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal was a "historic" accomplishment.(McClatchy)
Unfortunately for the agreement, the Iraqis seem to distrust our intentions to honor that timetable.
The problem for Iraqis, [Sagheer] said, was "the feeling with some of the parties that America has no intention of withdrawing within the timetable." Iraqis, he said, had so many negative experiences while a British mandate under the League of Nations from 1920 to 1932 that they fear a written agreement. "We have the feeling that if the Iraqi government accepts the demands, it will give a legal right to be occupied, so we don't have any kind of sovereignty."(McClatchy)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday that the US "had "great reluctance" to renegotiate."(BBC News 10-21)
"I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed," he said.
"The consequences of not having Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) and of not having a renewed UN authorisation are pretty dramatic."
Failure to finalise the Sofa or renew a UN mandate would mean US operations would have to be suspended. The UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of the year. (BBC News 10-21)
Some think that they shouldn't be negotiating with a lame-duck administration. (McClatchy) Instead, they are talking about seeking an extension. Gates said this isn't a "clean option" and that Russia would probably veto it. Apparently not:
....Iraq's political leaders are considering seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate for the presence of U.S. troops, which will expire on Dec. 31. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has assured Iraq that it wouldn't veto an extension, he said, adding that one was likely to last between six months and a year. (McClatchy)
Other sticking points are the same as they've always been.
The draft has also been strongly opposed by the faction led by radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, who brought thousands of supporters on to the streets of Baghdad on Saturday in protest.
Immunity for US military personnel and contractors is thought to be one of the key sticking points, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from Baghdad.
The pact is said to grant Iraqi judicial authorities limited ability to try US troops and contractors for major crimes committed off-duty or off-base - and only then if a joint US-Iraqi committee agrees.(BBC 2-21)
Some Iraqis also believe that they are ready to take over their own security.
Also addressing Adm Mullen's remarks, Iraq's military spokesman Brig Gen Qassim Atta said Iraqi forces were ready to handle security across the country, noting that they already control 11 of Iraq's provinces. (BBC News 10-22)
And Spencer Ackerman bluntly calls the SOFA a ploy by Bush & Co.
Furthermore, a lame-duck administration never should have pushed this deal in the first place. The SOFA was a last-ditch attempt at fucking over the next president and entrenching the war into the architecture of U.S. foreign policy -- with absolutely no Congressional approval -- and the strategy for pushing it through was to treat the Iraqis as vassals. Only fitting, then, that a cross-sectarian bloc would obstruct such an arrogant move.
Cernig's always astute analysis is here. In addition to pointing out potential consequences, he writes:
Meanwhile, John "watch my judgement" McCain is still trying to spin the status of forces agreement as being exactly what the Bush administration and he himself were looking for - and his adviser Randy Scheunemann is hinting McCain would just ignore the wishes of the Iraqis and international law anyway.
Memeorandum has other blogger reactions here.
RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Meanwhile, Bush Administration Commits to Firmer Deadlines for Withdrawal from Iraq; Also: A Note on Afghanistan
Agreement with Iraq Stalls Over Disputes About Troop/Military Contractor Immunity from Prosecution?
Comments