by Damozel | Did you know that George W. Bush is still president? It's true. And while you were arguing about the next election, he's been a busy president! That agreement with Iraq? The negotiators have completed their work, though there is still "the ponderous process" of Iraqi ratification to get through.
The Administration has made some concessions to "the sensitivities of the Iraqi government" that The New York Times notes would have been "unimaginable" a few months back. First, there's the matter of withdrawal dates. Is the Bush Administration waving what Governor Palin called "a white flag of surrender"? You be the judge! The New York Times reports:
The accord, which the Bush administration has been detailing in a series of briefings for lawmakers and their staffs, reflects several concessions to the Iraqi government. It lists specific dates for American forces to first move out of cities and then to leave Iraq, instead of the vague “aspirational” timelines for reductions of American forces that had been pressed by the Bush administration....
According to drafts of the agreement, United States forces would first withdraw from Iraqi cities and villages and move to bases no later than June 30, 2009, and those troop movements could occur even sooner should “Iraqi security forces assume responsibility for security in them.”
A sweeping accord between Iraq and the United States would set the end of 2011 as a concrete date for American withdrawal from Iraq, based on the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi security forces, according to a draft of the agreement....
The text of the agreement states emphatically that “United States forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territory no later than Dec. 31, 2011,” although both nations agreed that some American troops could remain after that date by mutual agreement. (NYT)
The Bush Administration has left a loophole----no doubt sensibly. "While giving specific dates, the draft does state that these “date goals” could be changed by mutual agreement, and might be accelerated or delayed depending on the ability of the Iraqis to take over the security mission and on “the conditions.”" (NYT)
According to BBC News analyst Jim Muir, the members of the Iraqi government now wrangling over the agreement think it's the best deal they are likely to get.
But that will not be enough to win automatic support for the agreement from all of Iraq's fractious groups, some of which are bitterly opposed to any continuing US presence, irrespective of the agreement's details.
Rejection of any agreement with the Americans is spearheaded by the group led by the militant Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, who has strong grassroots support and also 30 seats in parliament. (Jim Muir)
And the Sadrists are making sure this is clear to the Iraqi government. 50,000 supporters of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr just staged a rally in Baghdad which they yelled that the US occupier should now get out. (BBC News)
Chanting slogans and waving banners, tens of thousands of Shias, mainly young men, marched on the eastern suburb of Sadr City towards the centre of Baghdad....
The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says Moqtada Sadr's militant opposition to the US presence has strong grassroots support among many Shias - and this was a physical manifestation of that opposition.(BBC News)
Iran also "openly opposes" the agreement and is perhaps influencing the resistance of Iraqi Shias.(Jim Muir) The commander of coalition forces thinks they are bribing Iraqi officials to vote against it, though he concedes he can't prove it.(Jim Muir)
As to some of the other conditions of the agreement: even some Congressional Democrats are worried about some of the concessions.
“It’s critical that our dedicated men and women in uniform serving in Iraq have full legal protections and are not subject to criminal prosecution in an Iraqi judicial system that does not meet due process standards,” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I intend to reserve judgment as to whether the proposed agreement includes safeguards adequate to meet this standard until I have an opportunity for a more complete review.” (NYT)
Robert Gates offers reassurance on that score:
Mr. Gates said “there is no reason to be concerned” by the agreement’s definition of legal guarantees for American troops. He said he and the senior military leadership “are all satisfied that our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq are well protected.”
Ratification ain't by any means a foregone conclusion, Muir points out at the BBC.
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is said to want at least a two-thirds majority of parliament in support of the agreement so that he can fend off its critics.
A margin of that size may be hard to muster.
"All the outstanding issues have been resolved, and what's needed now is tough decisions - do we want it or not?" Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the BBC.
"The text is ready, and everybody has stretched their positions to the limit - there can be no more negotiations." (Jim Muir; emphasis added)
More on the agreement at The New York Times.
In the meantime, what about taking the right to Afghanistan, as Obama has proposed? Nir Rosen's report in Rolling Stone (via Cernig at Newshoggers) isn't going to cheer up anyone who believes we can uproot and drive out the Taliban.
Joining with Spencer Ackerman in calling Nir Rosen's report an instant classic of war reporting, Cernig concludes:
Nir Rosen imbedded with the Taliban for his latest report on Afghanistan, out now in Rolling Stone. His experiences included almost being executed by a fanatical Taliban local warlord, but he came away with the conclusion that adding more troops to Afghanistan won’t work, and that we should prepare an exit strategy....
Talking our way to an exit from the doomed adventure in Afghanistan really is the only way out of that grim trap. (Newshoggers)
Also via Cernig, Amy Goodman's interview of Rosen:
Petraeus Said that Iraq is Not the Sort of Action Where You Expect Victory
Petraeus and Bush on Success of the Surge: "Fragile"
Agreement with Iraq Stalls Over Disputes About Troop/Military Contractor Immunity from Prosecution?
US & Iraqi Military Officials Meet with Representatives of Sunni Awakening Councils
Pentagon Recommends Shift of American Forces from Iraq to Afghanistan
More on the Threat to the Success of the Surge
Good News/Bad News: US & Iraq Nearing Agreement on a Security Deal; Meanwhile, a Key US Strategy May Be in Serious Trouble
Admiral Fallon Discusses US foreign policy on BBC's Newsnight
Victory in Iraq: Not Ours to Claim?
Bush Agrees to Timeline for Withdrawing Troops from Iraq?
More Bush Administration Foreign Policy Failures: Key Setbacks In Iraq for both Bush and McCain
Comments