Iraq security pact will go to legislators — Iraqi legislators, anyway
posted at 8:50 am on April 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Irony abounds in the battle over the long-term security arrangements currently under negotiation between the Nouri al-Maliki and George Bush administrations. One of these two will submit the pact for legislative approval this summer — the legislature for whom democracy has been dismissed by a large portion of the other. The Iraqi National Assembly could get the agreement by July, while the American Congress may not see it at all:
Iraq will seek parliamentary approval for a strategic agreement being negotiated with the United States even though it expects heated debate over the deal, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said.
U.S. and Iraqi officials began talks last month on a strategic framework agreement that defines long-term bilateral ties and a separate “status of forces” deal outlining rules and protections governing U.S. military activity in Iraq.
The issue has become highly charged in Washington, with members of Congress saying it could tie the hands of the next administration by locking the United States into a long-term military presence in Iraq and arguing Congress should give its consent. …
“There isn’t any hidden agenda here. This agreement will be transparent, it has to be presented to the representatives of the Iraqi people, the parliament, to ratify it,” he said.
“I’m sure there will be some heated political debate when we come to that but I think on the other hand there is a strong will by the mainstream leadership in this country that this is for Iraq’s good. We need that continued engagement.”
That’s absolutely rich. Congress will find itself in the position of arguing that the US has handled this in a less democratic manner than their Iraqi counterparts — the same nation for which Democrats despaired of succeeding in transforming into a functional democracy over the last three years. They will have to use the Iraqis as precedent for their demand to ratify the security partnership as a treaty.
However, they will still have a point in doing so. The Constitution makes clear that the Congress has oversight on foreign pacts, and for good historical reasons. The framers did not intend to create an executive who could encumber the US with foreign partnerships unsupported by the will of the people. The Bush administration’s reliance on parsing the word “treaty” is simply Clintonian. This security partnership involves significant long-term commitments and should have Congressional oversight.
It actually comes at a great point in time for the Bush administration. The Democrats want to avoid another national debate about Iraq. This pact puts them in the position of abandoning the Iraqis even after the successful completion of combat missions. It shows them as unrepentant defeatists, and just in time for the upcoming national elections.
Put them on the spot. If the Iraqi National Assembly approves the agreement, Congress will find it very difficult to reject it, and it will force yet another capitulation from Democrats on Iraq.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“The Democrats want to avoid another national debate about Iraq.”
Wishful thinking?
Iraq’s falling apart…again.
I think them Dems would rather welcome another debate on Iraq…and the $200,000,000,000 a year we’re spending on it.
alphie on April 14, 2008 at 9:03 AM
So democracy has failed in Iraq, but the Iraqis are being more democratic about this than the United States has been? I’m not sure I see how both can be true. That said, I’m rather confident that not a single opinion will change, and not a hint of irony or hypocricy will be evident as Obama, Reid, Kennedy and Boxer tell us how much more democratic the Iraqi government is than our own.
Troika37 on April 14, 2008 at 9:04 AM
But they don’t want to debate it, Alphie. Hillary “suspension of disbelief” Clinton and Co. simply do not want to talk about the inescapable fact that things are getting better. First, the argument was “there can be no military solution.” Now the argument has become “there can be no military solution without a political solution.” As major, massive legislation has passed the Iraqi Congress, the argument has further changed to “there can simply be no solution.”
It is disheartening to see those who claim to love this country so invested in her defeat and humiliation.
Troika37 on April 14, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Yes, that’s “wishful thinking” on your part.
jgapinoy on April 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Which country are you talking about, Troika?
What good is a military success in Iraq if it costs America so much that we lose economically to India and China?
In the long run…military strength comes from economic strength.
And we’re getting our butts kicked.
alphie on April 14, 2008 at 9:20 AM
And the goalposts move again. Now it’s not that we’re winning, and stabalizing the country, it’s that it has become too expensive.
Tell you what, you figure out a way to tell millions of free Iraqis that securing the blessings of liberty for them and their posterity just isn’t worth it. It’s too long of a process, too complicated, and frankly, just too damn expensive.
I do have one question though: How can you believe it is the responsiblity of the United States to pay for healthcare and education for the millions of illegal aliens in this country on the grounds that they are simply seeking a better life? You are claiming – at the same time – that Iraqis have no right to a better life if it comes at the price of American dollars. “What good is … success in Iraq if it costs America so much that we lose economically?”
Troika37 on April 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Here, here! Jolly well said.
jgapinoy on April 14, 2008 at 9:30 AM
What in the F are you talking about?
Falling apart? Holy shit, there is a small upsurge in violence for two weeks, and everything is “falling apart.”
The Maliki govt is transcending sectarian lines and taking out Shiite militias there; militias who established themselves after the British left….
PROVING THE POINT THAT IF WE JUST RETREAT THE VOID WILL BE FILLED WITH 7TH CENTURY SAVAGES!
How come you sillies dont raise those points alphie?
Because you are literally rooting for the enemy.
blatantblue on April 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Bribing Iraqi terrorists to pretend they’re on our side isn’t “winning,” Troika.
It is not a long term win.
They just use our bribe money to rearm.
alphie on April 14, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Ed, I see your larger point, but all those other bilateral SOFA agreements and so forth–basing locations, who does what in OPLAN XX, etc–don’t necessarily go through legislative approval. (How much of what MacArthur did in Japan went through Congress once they provided the funds?) There’s a line there to cross or not cross. as far as which branch does what, that I think you might want to explore further.
Chap on April 14, 2008 at 9:33 AM
As nice as it would be to watch the Dems squirm as they admit that the Iraqi DO want US troops in their country, I think this would be opening a huge can of worms as EVERY SOFA agreement would now require congressional review. Do we really want to give congress the authority to veto US troops in every country they are stationed in? The Dems might be cowed into approving the SOFA for Iraq and Afghanistan and then disaprove of the SOFA for Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and Kyrgyzstan, cutting off their support chain. Here’s my rule of thumb; What would Ron Paul Do (then do the opposite).
BohicaTwentyTwo on April 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM
A conservative blog that isn’t a shill for the Bush Administration (*gasp*). I like your style, sir!
LT Nixon on April 14, 2008 at 10:22 AM
$200,000,000 a year…..
If we dont confront the radicals that want to CONQUER energy producing countries how much will it cost to no more then outguess them in the future? For an indeterminate amount of time.
Not to mention we would be viewed as nutless to the rest of the world, we also could never be assured that we could protect ourselves from catastrophic attack from the animals we let off the hook.
Cost is irrelevant since the other choice is simply defeat.
Sonosam on April 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Obviously the surge has failed. There is no democracy, e must pull the troops out of the US!
rbj on April 14, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Congress can debate whatever it likes. Until a treaty is presented to the Senate for a vote, they have nothing else to do, since foreign relations is purely an Executive function.
So no, not too surprising.
mojo on April 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Cap’n Ed,
BAD IDEA!
A Status of Forces Agreement doesn’t usually have a long list of security demands and restrictions associated with it which would rise to the level of a treaty. It is an agreement over who will guard the bases (host nation rent a cops, US rent a cops, etc…), how they will handle their communications and operations, what will happen to US military and host nation civilians accused of crimes on the bases or in the field, where US forces will be allowed to train, what rules they will follow to do so, who they will call when things go wrong, when the lights don’t work, who pays whom, etc…. They are more like contracts for services than treaties.
They don’t usually cover who will land in country and set up a defense of the host nation if attacked by country B. That’s a treaty. “We will come to your aid if you are attacked by B”. That stuff is usually covered in Operations Plans produced by the military anyway as contingencies. And treaties will be formalized by the State Dept, not DOD. If the Iraqis want to approve it via legislators (since the only military folks they have are trained by the USA, they might want an independent review), then let ‘em have theirs. We have folks paid to do that for a living in DOD, not Congress.
This is a lot of nonsense about nothing. Does Congress really need to be briefed that a US serviceman accused of raping a 12 yr old host national will be turned over to the custody of the US Military for holding until formal charges are brought by the host nation, and discuss the nuances of how he shall then be turned over for prosecution to the host nation authorities? Guess we’d better get Congress to carry on full hearings on the Okinawa/Japan SOFA ASAP, huh? How about every time Korea wants to renegotiate this stuff, we get Congress involved instead of letting DOD and State do their legwork first? If everything is agreed to first, then why does Congress really need to put their grubby hands on it?
This is the worst idea I ever heard. Let Congress get into the bowels of DOD and use their proctoscope to finagle out ever crappy nuance of international law possible so we can idiot proof US military conduct? That’s the way to run a military. Why don’t we just give up Flag Officers and give each Congressman their own Army? That way when they duke it out on the floor of Congress, we can get some real resolution for our policy problems.
You can’t “idiot proof” everything. Why don’t we just listen to Chap and Bohica 22 and let the professional military folks handle the Status of Fodrces Agreements and let Congress get back to doing what it does best? Prostitution. Giving us a screwing and taking our money.
Subsunk out.
Subsunk on April 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I don’t read the comments that often but, hey alphie, how long have you been here? They miss you at Protein Wisdom, Patterico’s Pontifications, and Jules Crittenden. But especially at Protein Wisdom. Nishi’s getting her butt kicked.
Troika, it’s best not to feed this particular troll.
GISAP on April 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The huge implications in all this are extremely positive. One must read between the lines of this al-Reuters article to see what this “progressive” MSM entity, for ideological reasons, refuses to see or won’t say.
.
The implications all point to a new, democratic Iraq taking root and wanting to act in concert with the US to ensure this new Iraq’s vital national interests, namely the survival and flourishing of this new free Iraq.
DavePa on April 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Yeah, even Crocker said that if the SOFA rises to the level of a treaty, that it would definitely be brought before Congress.
apollyonbob on April 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I can’t help but recall a while back when Bush was publicly warning the candidates not to get too publicly invested in pulling out of Iraq … and the Rs were going nuts claiming that Bush was obviously throwing the election behind a D candidate … because Bush was dedicated to destroying the GOP .. over immigration reform…
LOL
Now, all is revealed.
That’s called Texas Hold ‘Em!!
:)
Texas Gal on April 14, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Theres a key difference between a SOFA and a Treaty…
A Treaty say somthing like I will defend you….
A SOFA says, when your troops are in my country, they will follow these rules, and have this authority…
If Bush tries to get the “I will defend you” part into a SOFA, then it needs to go to the Senate…
Otherwise… not….
Part of this issue is that the Senate has NOT pushed there authority on SOFAs… so they have essentialy given up that power… just like they did with the War Powers Act on War.
Romeo13 on April 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
According to an old Chinese proverb, if you save a man’s life you’re responsible for him thereafter. But what if the man whose life you saved was trying to kill himself? Are you more responsible than ever?
- Pierre Salvadori
MB4 on April 14, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Off with his head! Sentence first, verdict afterwards.
Sigy on April 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Iraq more democratic?
Serial?
We all know the Iraqi legislature is a rubber stamp body appointed by Bush and his cronies in Washington to do their bidding so that they can suck Iraq dry of oil so that they can get rich off the profits when they sell it for record prices. :D
Vatican Watcher on April 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM
MB4 on April 14, 2008 at 3:33 PM
A Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is traditionally and historically not voted on by the Congress of the United States. Especially in cases where the Congress has waived it’s right to either affirm or deny the country from going to war. The idea that it is “Clintonian” is entirly partisan.
To, however, determine what constitues a SOFA and what constitutes a Treaty can only be decided by a Court of Law, or by such Law passed by Congress. Both of which our system of governance will stand on the narrow bridge, turn to face the camera, and say “You shall not pass.” Albeit with a bit of role reversal.
PresidenToor on April 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM
alphie=Harry Reid? How`d he become a member! lol
ThePrez on April 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I think that if you gave alphie the choice of Iraq, a functioning country with Bush and the US military getting some credit and Iraq in chaos with the US blamed, he would pick two happily. That is what alphie wants, failure. Success would be a disaster for the alphies. They prefer the mass graves of Saddam, Zarqawi in his training camp and the UN a laughing stock than success in Iraq. A better life for Iraqis, an ally in the Middle East for the US…perish the thought. Yes, alphie would prefer to see the Persian Gulf mined and the world economy in tatters than see anything positive come out of Iraq.
Pathetic little person that alphie is.
Terrye on April 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Funny!
Vatican Watcher on April 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: