Status Uncertain‏

October 27, 2008

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers Contact Us | Tell-a-Friend | Archives | Permalink | Subscribe to Feed

IRAQ

Status Uncertain

It looks increasingly likely that President Bush will leave office without having achieved one of his most significant goals: the signing of a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq. Iraq's Cabinet has delayed a decision on the draft security agreement that would provide a legal framework for the U.S. military presence in Iraq. "One prominent lawmaker suggested some parties may be stalling until after the U.S. election on Nov. 4," the AP reported on Sunday. The U.S. presence is currently authorized by a U.N. resolution that expires on Dec. 31. In the absence of an agreement, the U.S. government "has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1." Many Iraqi politicians consider this threat "akin to political blackmail." Explaining why the agreement would not be signed in its current form, Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, told McClatchy that "for this matter, we need national consensus." Sagheer said Iraq's political leaders are considering seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES: The main points of disagreement are the target date for American military withdrawal and immunity of U.S. troops from prosecution under Iraqi law for acts committed while on duty. After declaring intention last year to get an agreement signed, the Bush administration and the Maliki government issued a statement of principles last November to guide a future agreement. In the interim, Maliki has become better established as an Iraqi leader, but has also become more acutely aware of Iraqi demands for a U.S. exit. Followers of popular Shi'a leader Muqtada al-Sadr have insisted for years on a firm commitment for U.S. withdrawal. Last weekend, tens of thousands of Sadr's followers, along with many Sunnis, demonstrated in Baghdad against the proposed agreement. It is also highly unlikely that Washington will budge on its insistence that U.S. troops enjoy immunity while performing their military duties. Unfortunately, by clinging to his goal of an extended U.S. presence in Iraq, Bush has squandered much of the U.S.'s leverage with Iraq's leaders. Rather than the use the prospect of American withdrawal to encourage those leaders toward a sustainable national unity agreement, the Bush administration has instead been bargaining with Iraq to allow the U.S. to stay. As a result, neither goal has been achieved.

SLEEPING ON THE SOFA: Two weeks ago, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq Gen. Ray Odierno blamed Iran for the trouble over the SOFA, telling the Washington Post that Iran was "working publicly and covertly to undermine the status-of-forces agreement." But no one should find it surprising that Iran would seek to influence an agreement that could potentially involve a significant U.S. force presence on its border for years to come. Iran enjoys to all levels of leading Iraqi Shi'a parties like the Da'wa and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a relationship derived both from shared traditions of scholarly activism between Iran and Iraq, and from the fact these parties were headquartered in Tehran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. Though Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has indicated that he would support the Iraqi government's decision on the SOFA -- having previously made his preferences clear -- other religious leaders have been less circumspect. Lebanon's Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a source of guidance for many in the Da'wa Party, including Maliki, indicated very strict conditions for any agreement. Iran's Ayatollah Kazem Ha'eri -- a source of guidance for many Sadrists -- rejected the SOFA outright. The power of these ayatollahs to effectively scuttle an agreement of significant import to the security of the United States throws into stark relief what the Bush administration has created in Iraq: a government dominated by religious Shia parties who take their guidance and draw their legitimacy primarily from the edicts of a small handful of senior Shi'a clerics.

UNDER THE RADAR: The status of forces agreement represented a last ditch effort by the Bush administration to salvage something positive from the failed war in Iraq. Walter Pincus writes in this morning's Washington Post that the SOFA as written "would apparently tie the hands of the next U.S. president in some respects if it was ratified by the Iraqis before Jan. 20." Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and University of California-Berkeley professor Oona Hathaway argue that "the Bush proposal undermines the constitutional powers of the next president as commander in chief" by "subject[ing] American military operations to 'the approval of the Iraqi government.'" But with the presidential campaign in the homestretch, Americans are hearing too little about an agreement which has serious and significant implications for America's future in the Middle East. Brian Katulis and Peter Juul of the Center for American Progress wrote last week that "the American people should be engaged in the debate every bit as much as the Iraqi people are today across their own country. ... Americans cannot afford to allow a lame duck administration to push through an 11th-hour agreement with Iraq that might not advance America's national security interests." It now looks like reaching an agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq will fall to the next administration -- just like the rest of the Iraq mess.