SOFA Taken To The Trash Heap

by dday

Over the weekend, US negotiators in Iraq signaled that they would not be able to reach a long-term status of forces agreement for what amounts to a permanent occupation of the country, because the entire Iraqi political establishment has been demanding a timetable for withdrawal. While the Iraqis are most likely wanting political cover for signing the agreement by offering their constituents the possibility of a life without US troops, and the need for withdrawal appeared more rhetorical than actual, regardless of the reasoning they held to that commitment and stared down Bush. It’d be nice if the loyal opposition here at home could learn the lesson.

But let’s be clear. These aren’t exactly fixed dates for the return of US forces:

Unlike the status-of-forces agreements between the United States and countries such as South Korea and Japan, where large numbers of U.S. troops have been based for decades, the document now under discussion with Iraq is likely to cover only 2009. Negotiators expect it to include a “time horizon,” with specific goals for U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations such as the former Saddam Hussein palace that now houses the U.S. Embassy.

The fixed dates will likely include caveats referring to the ability of Iraqi security forces to take over from U.S. units, but without them, U.S. negotiators concluded that Iraqi acquiescence was doubtful. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his political allies have come under intense domestic pressure to reject any perceived infringement on Iraqi sovereignty. Maliki, who last week publicly insisted on a withdrawal timeline, wants to frame the agreement as outlining the terms for “Americans leaving Iraq” rather than the conditions under which they will stay, said the U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because U.S.-Iraqi negotiations are ongoing.

The idea, he said, is to “take the heat off [Maliki] a little bit, to rebrand the thing and counter the narrative that he’s negotiating for a permanent military presence in Iraq.”

Goals, hopes, targets, with domestic Iraqi politics firmly in mind.

Still, this is significant. Bush tried to steamroll the Iraqis and failed, and now the next President will determine the course of action. As Dr. Irack notes, this is because the Bushies used the same unilateral approach that’s allowed them to plow through domestic opponents, but it didn’t work in Iraq:

Because talks were not occurring against the backdrop of negotiating a U.S. withdrawal and a clear signal that we did not want to have the rights and prerogatives to stay in Iraq indefinitely, two things happened:

1. Iraqi sovereignty and nationalist anxieties were exacerbated by the perception that we were negotiating a permanent occupation (regardless of how many times the administration asserted it wasn’t seeking permanent bases). This made it difficult for Iraqi officials–including those that wanted a long-term agreement negotiated under Bush–to sign on to anything.

2. U.S. negotiators framed the whole thing to the Iraqis as us wanting to negotiate a way to stay in Iraq. This reversed the leverage in negotiations, making us appear increasingly desperate to give the Iraqis concessions so we could stick around indefinitely. This made it look like we needed them more than they needed us, which is completely back-ass-ward.

They couldn’t hide their desire to stay in Iraq forever enough to make it politically possible for the Iraqis to sign on. This is the usual hubris. But it also has implications for the next President. Because, since a long-term agreement will be negotiated in the future, whoever implements the policy can take it in one of two radically different directions. John McCain has made no secret of his long-term desires to keep a significant American presence in Iraq. Barack Obama wrote an op-ed today outlining his different goals.

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States […]

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war […]

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

In response, the McCain campaign has … accused Obama of surrender. So it goes.

.