| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraqis Not Following D.C. Timetable for Pact |
| 2008-06-16 |
| Discussions among Iraqi politicians on the country’s long-term security agreement with the United States were under way over the weekend, but it will take many weeks and more likely months before the agreement is completed, people close to the negotiations said. American officials “None of the articles have yet been agreed to,” said Fouad Massoun, a Kurd who is involved in the discussions. “The negotiations are in the primary stage.” These things take time, Inshallah. Meeting the July 31 deadline “will be very difficult,” said Humam Hamoudi, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite party that backs the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The agreement will regulate the relationship between the American military and the Iraqis after the expiration at the end of the year of a United Nations resolution authorizing the presence of foreign troops in the country. The latest draft of the new bilateral agreement offered by the Americans made some significant concessions but in several important areas did not move close enough to Iraqi demands, according to several participants in the Iraqi committee that is meeting regularly to discuss the pact. They consulted for several hours on Saturday and agreed that Mr. Maliki should lead the negotiations. The overarching question is how much control Iraq will have over the activities of the American military on Iraqi soil. As much as the UN in Lebanon? The Americans have said they will allow civilian contractors to be held accountable under Iraqi law, said Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Political Council for National Security. He said they had also agreed to hand over to the Iraqis people captured by American soldiers and accused of crimes. Such detainees are now held in American facilities. They will also transfer suspects already held in American detention centers to the Iraqis, Mr. Othman said. But that leaves many practical questions unanswered. There are now roughly 21,000 detainees in American custody; if they were transferred to Iraqi custody, where would they go? The Iraqis do not have facilities for them, and it would not be easy for Americans to hand over their detention centers at Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca to the Iraqis. The Iraqis appear to have agreed to allow the Americans to continue to control their airspace because the Iraqis lack the extensive flight control expertise and equipment necessary, said Mr. Othman and another member of the Political Council for National Security. When Iraqis say they want their sovereignty respected, they are talking in part about having the power to set the terms of the relationship between the United States and Iraq. For instance, will American soldiers be able to undertake military operations as they see fit, as they do now? The Iraqis are discussing possible compromises. “One idea is to have a joint Iraqi-American committee that would approve all operations,” Mr. Hamoudi said. How about the Americans come from their secure bases, protected by Iraqi troops, when called upon? Although the United States has agreements around the world with countries about the behavior of American soldiers stationed on foreign soil, including those with many American troops, like South Korea, Japan and Germany, none involve soldiers carrying out active combat operations. Another reason the Iraqis believe it will take some time to complete a pact is that they have been visiting other countries with American bases, to look at their security agreements. The Iraqis want to hire European and American legal consultants to review those and their own proposed security agreement with the Americans. Plenty of time, especially since much of the dying is being done by Iraqis. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #10 I'm with you, OS, but make sure the NYT and WaPo don't figure it out .. oh cheez, what am I saying? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-06-16 15:52 |
| #9 The US threw them a pretty broad and excessive SOFA in order to give Maliki the ability to push back and play the "Iraqi Nationalist" card effectively. Iran calls him on the carpet to fuss about the Americans - he tells the the Americans are our friends and the US will be staying around a while. Back home, ht rejects the contract and proposes one of his hown - making the point that he is hsi own man, and in the "Arab Street" is seen as standing up to the US. And on top of it all, Maliki even POINTEDLY makes the reference to Korea and European US-SOFAs there by saying he is studying those treaties as examples. This is saying in effect: The US is staying but on our terms, and as our guest and friend and guarantor of our security. So he covers a lot of bases with these actions. Funny thing is his "pushback" is more in line with actual US SOFA agreements. We set it up, he gets to knck them down and we all get what we need: US - basing and continuity, Maliki - street cred and security. See how it works? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-16 13:52 |
| #8 There is no advantage to anybody except Hussein for the agreement to be reached before the election. And after the election, Bush is the lamest of ducks and an agreement made then would be easily repudiated by Hussein upon taking office. An agreement could be made if McCain is elected so that Bush takes the heat for it but McCain doesn't have to negotiate it. So relax. This like Iran action is on hold till November 9. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-16 11:29 |
| #7 If the committee is structured so that it allows provisional approval followed by detailed restrictions it would work fine in most cases since the combat action would be over before the detailed restrictions came out. Bureaucracy can be gamed (I should know, its my day job). |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-06-16 09:42 |
| #6 A committee pisses off everyone and pleases nobody. And it is that way by design. Checks and balances. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-16 09:35 |
| #5 note - esp a COMMITTEE that moves slowly, not an op that moves slowly |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-06-16 09:04 |
| #4 Although the United States has agreements around the world with countries about the behavior of American soldiers stationed on foreign soil, including those with many American troops, like South Korea, Japan and Germany, none involve soldiers carrying out active combat operations. That's because, at this point, Iraq is not South Korea, Japan and Germany. When the Iraqis reach stability, as are South Korea, Japan and Germany, then an appropriate SoFA can be inked. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-06-16 09:04 |
| #3 the iraqi govt is vulnerable to the charge from domestic enemies of giving away sovereignty - so in particular they have to insist that American troops cant launch ops without Iraqi govt permission. This is reasonable. The US military, reasonably, doesnt want to have to check in with a committee whenever they launch an op, esp one that moves frustratingly slowly. Methinks a solution will be arrived at, and it will satisfy no one. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-06-16 09:03 |
| #2 gromky, citations please. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-16 08:57 |
| #1 Another reason the Iraqis believe it will take some time to complete a pact is that they are under the control of Iran, who doesn't want any US forces in Iraq at all, and short of that will use its influence to hobble them as much as possible. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-06-16 08:21 |