Iraq Permanent Bases

Congress Should Not Fund the Illegal Bush-Maliki Agreement

Bob Fertik — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:15:03 -0500

Maya Schenwar has an excellent analysis of the Iraq Withdrawal Agreement on Truthout, especially the way Congress was frozen out of the entire process - even though the agreement includes security commitments that require Senate ratification as a treaty:

On the US side, negotiations on the pact have been cloaked in secrecy. The official English version of the final agreement was withheld - from the public and from Congress - throughout most of the past few weeks' negotiations. At a recent House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing on the pact, testifiers had to use a translated version supplied by Jarrar. Congressman Bill Delahunt, chairman of the subcommittee, criticized the administration's covert handling of the pact.

"We must not forget that this agreement has just been provided to Congress – and that there has been no time to conduct the analysis required by such a significant document," Delahunt said at the hearing. "Even now, the National Security Council has requested that we do not show this document to our witnesses or release it to the public – a public that for over five years has paid so dearly with blood and treasure ... But this is typical of the Bush administration and its unhealthy and undemocratic obsession with secrecy."

Foreign Policy in Focus Fellow Erik Leaver sees a jarring disconnect between the processes of SOFA consideration in Iraq and in the US.

"How ironic it is that a country we sought to bring democracy to is reading and debating the agreement, while in the US there isn't even an official translation of the document for the public," Leaver told Truthout.

So what should Congress do to assert its proper Constitutional role in ratifying treaties?

Beyond its consequences in Iraq, the approval of the pact sets a dangerous precedent for the expansion of executive power in the United States. The agreement far overreaches the bounds of typical executive-only SOFAs: it grants US troops the "authority to fight," and Congress is the branch vested with the power to declare war. Yet the Bush administration drafted and negotiated the pact with the Iraqi government without consulting Congress. Bush's actions carve out a whole new arena of presidential power for history to soak up, according to Steve Fox, director of the American Freedom Campaign.

"The Bush administration has effectively expanded the scope of what a SOFA covers, and since there has been no formal objection from Congress, future presidents will now claim they have the same power to unilaterally negotiate far-reaching international agreements," Fox told Truthout.

The American Freedom campaign proposes that Congress pass a "signing statement resolution," asserting that since the Iraq SOFA is unconstitutional, Congress need not provide funding to carry it out.

"Such a resolution, which would still allow Congress to fund the agreement if they feel compelled by the Obama administration to do so, could be passed by both the House and the Senate the week of December 8," Fox said. "If congressional leaders cannot bring themselves to take that one minor step, then the damage to their institution may be irreversible."

Fox is right - sign the AFC petition.

Is the Withdrawal Agreement a Treaty?

Bob Fertik — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:38:07 -0500

According to Corporate Media reports, passage of the U.S. Withdrawal Agreement by the Iraqi Parliament means U.S. forces will leave Iraq by 12/31/11 - unless our troops are brough home by 5/31/10 as promised by Barack Obama, or sent home one year after the Iraqi people vote in a referendum in July 2009.

As David Swanson rightly asks, why don't the American people - or even Congress - have a vote?

The curious thing, of course, about this brutal mission to continue imposing our system of democracy on Iraq by staying and killing for additional years is that their parliament voted, and our Congress covered its ears, closed its eyes, and hummed. Their media covered the ongoing negotiations, while ours watched Sarah Palin pardon turkeys.

Rachel Maddow was equally outraged:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate must ratify all treaties. Of course the U.S. has many international agreements that are signed by the President without Senate ratification. So what's the bright line test for an agreement that is really a treaty?

The mention of "security" set off alarms for Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), who wanted to know if it required U.S. forces to defend Iraq - in other words, a full-fledged treaty.

Ryan Crocker described the agreements to the Senate on 4/8/08, prompting a question from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA):

Ambassador Crocker, with respect to the strategic framework agreement, we've had two different documents that have been, kind of, discussed almost in a way in this hearing that people may think it's one document when clearly it is not. I have a couple of questions on that.

One is, you know, I read your testimony where you say this is clearly no permanent bases, but I'm not sure really what that term means anymore.

Can you tell us what would have been in this document that would have elevated it to the point that from the administration's perspective it would have required congressional approval?

CROCKER: Senator, I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional specialist. I am advised by those individuals. So I can't give you the whole, you know, universe of issues that might be involved. But some of them are obvious.

The kind of provision that is in the NATO SOFA, of a formal security commitment: that raises that particular SOFA to the level of advice and consent by the Senate. And that is not what we intend in this current exercise.

WEBB: Well, we've been trying to get a look at what the specific wording in the document is. And to this point, it has not been shared with us. But it's been my understanding that there is a security commitment in the agreement.

CROCKER: No, sir, there isn't.

Again, the SOFA negotiation itself is still in its very early stages, and we have not yet -- although we have briefed the other document, the strategic framework agreement -- we have briefed that to the Iraqi leadership, we have not yet sat down for formal discussions. So, this is still...

WEBB: Well then, that would be the document that we in the Congress would be initially concerned with, rather than the SOFA. But I'll save this for the afternoon because my time has run out.

The official Withdrawal Agreement starts with an implicit U.S. promise to defend Iraq:

Recognizing the importance of: strengthening their joint security, contributing to world peace and stability, combating terrorism in Iraq, and cooperating in the security and defense spheres, thereby deterring aggression and threats against the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of Iraq and against its democratic, federal, and constitutional system;

As DHinMI makes clear, Iraq cannot defend itself yet:

Until and unless the Iraqis have choppers, tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, they can't fully operate as a modern military force. Iraq's terrain makes this especially problematic, because Iraq is essentially an urban river valley surrounded by a vast desert that is difficult to defend, with no natural boundaries protecting Iraq from invasions from any direction except the North. And this doesn't even address other key defensive capabilities such as air defenses and fighter jets.

With massive and stunningly valuable oil reserves, an unguarded and unprotected Iraq would present enticing targets for any number of Iraq's neighbors. Saudi Arabia or Iran could covet the oil fields in the south, while Turkey could seek to seize the oil fields in the north.

So the "deterrence" promise in the Withdrawal Agreement is not hypothetical but quite real. Doesn't that make it a treaty?

Update 1: Is there a different secret agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq to defend it against external aggression for years to come, as Siun suggests?

Is the Bush administration so desperate to have almost any agreement so long as the SOFA is portrayed here as some form of victory or is there more going on here? As Bernard at Moon of Alabama reminds us, Mailiki and Crocker signed two agreements, not just the SOFA - and the second, a Strategic Forces Agreement, may be the more important as he notes in "The Iraq SOFA Is A Shiny Object that is supposed to keep our eyes away from the problematic text of the SFA."

David Swanson found the SFA on the White House web site. It includes a security section, but that section is explicitly subordinate to the Withdrawal Agreement described above.

Section III: Defense and Security Cooperation

In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq, and thereby contribute to international peace and stability, and to enhance the ability of the Republic of Iraq to deter all threats against its sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity, the Parties shall continue to foster close cooperation concerning defense and security arrangements without prejudice to Iraqi sovereignty over its land, sea, and air territory. Such security and defense cooperation shall be undertaken pursuant to the Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.

Roads to Iraq cites a report in the Jordanian newspaper Factjo of ten articles in a secret agreement, including:

7- The U.S. forces have the right to use the Iraqi ground, water and air to strike any country threatens the international and regional peace and security, the Government of Iraq and its constitution.

Since I don't know Arabic, I can't assess Factjo as a source.

But if there is a secret agreement that trumps the Withdrawal Agreement, the Democratic Congress - and progressives - need to find out...

Iraq Withdrawal Agreement is Typical Bushit

Bob Fertik — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:43:27 -0500

Juan Cole:

McClatchy reports that the Bush administration had deliberately not released the official English version of the security agreement it is negotiating with Iraq, fearing that extensive public debate on it in the US press might throw up criticisms that would be taken up by Iraqi parliamentarians, causing it to be rejected.

It is quite remarkable that this agreement, on which the fate of tens of thousands of American troops depends, has not been officially available to the American public or to Congress!

Actually Congress may have seen the agreement - they're just not saying.

The McClatchy story makes it clear that the exact wording of some articles appears to have continued to be negotiated right up until the moment, though even agreement on wording has not produced agreement on the meaning of the words. (Iraqis should have been warned about Bush's 'signing statements,' in which he attempts to reverse the intent of the laws that Congress passes and he signs, just by appending a commentary in Bushspeak.)

Exactly right.

McClatchy adds:

'The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday — just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote. These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.'

In other words, the Pentagon will studiedly ignore the more important provisions of the agreement, if Bush has his way.

In other words, much of the "agreement" is complete bullshit as far as Bush is concerned. Happily Bush won't be in office to break it.

McClatchy got hold of copy of the official translation on Tuesday, posting it in pdf here.

That's the same version the Iraq Oil Report published on 11/18.

Update 1: Badger explains the Bushit:

In plain language: (1) You can have some criminal jurisdiction under a scheme that will to be determined in discussions that will be dragged out over the coming three years, during which time we will continue to have jurisdiction. (2) We won't use your territory to attack any other state, but we can invade another state if it is hot pursuit or legitimate self-defence. (3) We will inform you of our military operations, but in terms so vague the information will be meaningless to you.

In the end, Bush's 3-year Withdrawal Agreement will be irrelevant. Obama promised a 16-month withdrawal and Bob Gates will implement it, unless the Iraqi people throw us out sooner.

Iraqi People May Kick U.S. Troops Out in 2009

Bob Fertik — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:35:33 -0500

The Iraqi Parliament was supposed to vote today on the U.S. Withdrawal Agreement, but Sunnis demanded final ratification through a national referendum. The final vote is expected tomorrow.

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's ruling coalition appears to be assured of at least a slim majority in the 275-seat legislature. But the prime minister seeks a bigger win that transcends factionalism and sectarian divisions and reinforces the legitimacy of the pact, which could lead to full Iraqi sovereignty and close the bloody chapter that began with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Shiite Lawmaker Ridha Jawad Taqi said the government's Shiite and Kurdish blocs, which account for about 140 seats, or a slight majority in parliament, were willing to hold a national referendum on the deal in 2009.

That is a concession to many Sunni Arab legislators, who have said they would support the security pact if it was put to a nationwide vote next year.

If that happens, the deal could be approved by parliament, but torpedoed by a "no" vote in the referendum.

A referendum would give the Iraqi people a chance to evaluate "whether their interests have been achieved," said Alaa Makki, a member of parliament's biggest Sunni Arab bloc, the 44-seat Iraqi Accordance Front.

So if Parliament approves the agreement tomorrow it will go into effect on January 1, and by June 1 U.S. troops will have to leave Iraqi cities and move to U.S. bases in preparation for complete departure by 12/31/11.

But if the Iraqi people reject the agreement when they get to vote sometime in 2009, U.S. troops would have to leave Iraq immediately.

If the polls in Iraq are reliable, President-elect Obama needs to tell SecDef Gates to start planning to bring our troops home asap.

Rep. Sestak Opposes Iraq Withdrawal Agreement

Bob Fertik — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:06:41 -0500

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), a former Navy admiral, wrote an op ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer opposing the Iraq Withdrawal Agreement because it gives Iraq jurisdiction over U.S. troops. While I also oppose the Iraq Withdrawal Agreement, Sestak's analysis is so shockingly ill-informed that I must respond point-by-point. You can share your thoughts with Rep. Sestak here.

Acute flaw in Iraq deal over forces

The status-of-forces agreement will give Iraqi courts jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in some cases. This could put them in legal peril.

On Nov. 16, the Iraqi cabinet approved a U.S.-Iraqi status-of-forces agreement.

Not so, Rep. Sestak. It's a Withdrawal Agreement, not a SOFA.

This week, as the Iraqi parliament considers it for final approval, I am once again voicing my grave concerns about the agreement.

This is probably the last chance I and other lawmakers will get to voice our objections. President Bush has chosen to craft the document as an executive agreement instead of a treaty, which means it will not require congressional ratification.

Rep. Sestak, the Constitution doesn't permit a President to sign an "executive agreement instead of a treaty." As a Congressman, you took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Since Bush's actions appear to be unconstitutional, you can ask the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers to hold a hearing on whether they are unconstitutional and whether the agreement is therefore invalid. You can support legislation requiring Senate ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement as a treaty.

I have always believed that the war in Iraq is a tragic misadventure that has siphoned off vital military capability from Afghanistan - especially our ability to patrol the border with Pakistan, where al-Qaeda's leadership has found a long-standing haven.

The 1500-mile-long Afghan-Pakistan border is way too long, rugged, and remote for U.S. troops to "patrol." Heck, we can't even "patrol" our own 2000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border, which is mostly flat desert. Oh and by the way, Afghan president Hamid Karzai would like a "Withdrawal Agreement" too.

That said, from my 31-year military background, I also understand the need for a deliberate withdrawal from Iraq that does not put our troops in unnecessary danger.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want our troops to leave their country. Why would they fire on departing American troops, rather than shower them with flowers and candy? And if a convoy is fired upon, don't our troops know how to fire back? And if we lose a few troops in gun battles as they depart, aren't we losing a few troops each week we remain?

Our continued presence in the region will therefore be necessary for a limited period of time. And due to the imminent expiration of the U.N. mandate that permits U.S. troops to remain in Iraq legally, we must have a new legal agreement to remain after Dec. 31.

However, this status-of-forces agreement is simply not the best means of achieving that.

To repeat: It's a Withdrawal Agreement, not a SOFA.

Americans should be very concerned that, in an attempt to highlight Iraqi autonomy and the increasing bilateral ties between our countries, President Bush has put our uniformed men and women in legal peril.

The final version of the agreement will permit the Iraqi courts to exercise jurisdiction over American soldiers under limited circumstances. What those circumstances are remains unclear, as do the crimes for which they may be prosecuted.

That is one of many considerations not explicitly laid out in the text of the agreement, and it's likely there will be future conflicts between the two governments over matters of interpretation.

Procedural standards, such as rules of evidence to be used in trials of American soldiers, are also notably lacking. The agreement merely stipulates that a committee "shall establish procedures and mechanisms" at a future date. The agreement can hardly be described as comprehensive.

While we should respect the fact that Iraq is a developing democracy, we should not give Iraqi courts any jurisdiction over our soldiers at this point. It's a frightening idea: American mothers and fathers would have to sit by as their children are prosecuted by a judiciary that has seen at least 37 of its judges murdered in broad daylight.

The same goes for the possibility that American service members could be arrested by Iraq's national police force. A commission led by retired Gen. James L. Jones Jr. found the force to be so corrupt as to warrant disbanding.

These are all valid points. But there's a reason George Bush agreed to them: the sovereign government of Iraq, for which over 4,000 Americans gave their lives, insisted on them.

Since Iraq is a sovereign nation, our troops can only stay there by Iraq's invitation.

If we do not allow other Middle Eastern allies, such as Kuwait, to exercise jurisdiction over the men and women of our armed forces, then there's no reason to cede such powers to the Iraqis.

Kuwait was grateful to the U.S. for driving Saddam Hussein's army out in 1991. Unfortunately Iraq is not as grateful to the U.S. for invading Iraq and unleashing chaos.

At a bare minimum, the status-of-forces agreement should have been clear about when precisely the Iraqis would be vested with this authority over our troops. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it would occur only after Iraq established "due-process standards and protections consistent with those available under United States and Iraqi law." He went on to say he never expected that to happen during the life of the agreement, so the United States can be expected to retain jurisdiction over its own soldiers.

In other words, Iraq can publicly claim jurisdiction over U.S. service members for certain unspecified crimes, but we never intend to see it happen.

This seemingly pragmatic but disingenuous ambiguity fails to achieve the clarity that should be required when it comes to protecting men and women in uniform. Once again, the Bush administration is telling America, "Trust us." Given its track record, we should not give the administration the benefit of the doubt on such an important issue.

The bottom line is that the diplomatic process was flawed, and the agreement is flawed, because its terms are potentially harmful to our service members.

I agree. But you're in Congress and you have the power to review and even stop this agreement. What are you going to do?

We should have taken the common-sense approach of returning to the United Nations for a renewed mandate for our presence in Iraq, as we did last December. Or we could have reached an interim bilateral agreement with Iraq while working to achieve a more responsible status-of-forces agreement - one that protects our soldiers.

Of course Bush did neither of those things. But that doesn't mean you have to accept Bush's failures. Why not calll for hearings to find out if the Withdrawal Agreement is even valid? Why not demand Senate ratification of the Iraq Withdrawal Agreement as a treaty?

It's Not a SOFA, It's a Withdrawal Agreement

Bob Fertik — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:07:51 -0500

Apparently very few journalists and bloggers have clicked the links to the English original and Arabic-to-English re-translation, because they keep calling the agreement a "Status of Forces Agreement" or (even less accurately) a "security agreement."

If they clicked the links they would discover the original English title is:

Agreement
Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq
On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq

and the Arabic-to-English retranslation is:

An agreement regarding the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq and regulating the U.S. activities during its temporary presence, between the United States and the Iraqi government

Regardless of which language you use, it's a Withdrawal Agreement, not a Status of Forces Agreement.

Who Lost Iraq? Bush!

Bob Fertik — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:24:10 -0500

The Corporate Media has barely noticed the biggest foreign policy story of the year: Bush's surrender to Iraqi demands for a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. (Sorry John McCain, this agreement is not "conditions-based." Sorry Dana Perino, there is no "time horizon.")

In the binary world of conservative ideology, there can only be one winner and one loser. In this case, Iraq won and the U.S. lost.

Conservative ideology also requires all defeats to be blamed on somebody. After Mao's Communists beat Chiang Kai-shek and took over China, conservatives demanded to know "Who lost China" - as if it was somehow America's fault, rather than Chiang Kai-shek's. And ever since Richard Nixon pulled the last U.S. troops off Vietnamese roofs in helicopters, conservatives have tried to blame "the liberal media" for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

So for generations to come, conservatives will demand to know "Who lost Iraq?" The first strike in this debate comes from Nancy A. Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers, who quotes cowardly jerks (Sarah Palin's apt description of anonymous critics) with top jobs in Bush's Pentagon, which makes them Neocons.

Why the U.S. blinked on its troop agreement with Iraq

Although the Pentagon officially has welcomed the new accord on a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, senior military officials are privately criticizing President Bush for giving Iraq more control over U.S. military operations for the next three years than the U.S. had ever contemplated.

So who lost Iraq? George Bush. But conservative ideology also needs a "conspiracy theory" to explain such treason. So what's the narrative?

Officials said U.S. negotiators had failed to understand how the two countries' political timetables would force the U.S. to make major concessions that relinquish much of the control over U.S. forces in Iraq. They said President Bush gave in to Iraqi demands to avoid leaving the decisions to his successor, Barack Obama.

At times, "President Bush wanted this deal more than the Iraqis did," said a senior administration official who closely monitored the negotiations.

So the conservative narrative is that Bush wanted to make the deal, not leave it to Obama. Why exactly isn't clear.

This official, and others, all who spoke anonymously to be candid, offered a first glimpse into the dynamics of the secret negotiations, which gave Iraq almost unprecedented control over U.S. troops in the period between Jan. 1 and a final U.S. withdrawal from Iraq on Dec. 31, 2011.

Yeah that part of the deal is pretty treasonous if you're a conservative who believes American troops should never be answerable to anyone but their Commander-in-Chief - and even then only if he's a Republican.

As part of the accord, which U.S. and Iraqi officials signed in Baghdad on Monday, Iraq will have potential authority over U.S. military operations, intelligence-gathering, cargo shipments and even the mail sent to American troops. Foreign contractors are subject to Iraqi law. On Jan. 1, Iraq will assume control of the U.S.-fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, and of the nation's airspace.

That's a very long list. In other words, Bush gave away the store. In conservative terms, this isn't far from Munich, where Chamberlain gave the Sudetenland to Hitler, or Yalta, where FDR gave Eastern Europe to Stalin.

The officials said the biggest factor in the outcome was the Iraq government's decision to re-schedule provincial elections from October until the end of January, which gave its negotiators strong arguments to drive a hard bargain.

This is elaborated below and just appears to be bad luck for Bush, not part of any conspiracy.

At the same time in Washington, political pressures generated by Obama's victory, first in the primaries and then in the general election, led Bush to meet the Iraqi demands.

The Bush administration had sought a conventional status of forces agreement that would provide a semi-permanent basis for stationing troops in Iraq, while Obama campaigned on promises to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of his inauguration.

It's true that Obama promised a 16-month withdrawal, but the article doesn't explain why that changed Bush's negotiating stance. Was the Democratic nominee giving orders to Bush? Obviously not.

Was Bush trying to help McCain? That's a lot more likely. Perhaps Bush was trying to negate the devastating impact of McCain's huge "100 Years in Iraq" gaffe by negotiating a faster timeline. If true, that would be very interesting to know.

The Arabic language version calls the final agreement a withdrawal accord.

Ouch, that really hurts if you're a conservative. And yes, we've noticed, even if the Corporate Media hasn't.

Publicly, the Defense Department defended the agreement on Wednesday, and top officials said they're comfortable with the final document, according to a senior Pentagon aide. "They wouldn't have signed off otherwise."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Capitol Hill Wednesday to explain the agreement, which still must be ratified by Iraq's parliament, though not by the U.S. Congress.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he was comfortable with the terms of the agreement and that it adequately protects U.S. troops.

This Pentagon approval is very important to remember, in case Bush holdovers in the Pentagon try to sabotage President Obama when he implements the agreement by withdrawing U.S. forces over the next couple of years.

The White House defended what it called a "mutually agreed to agreement." Spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We asked for some things that we didn't get, they asked for some things that they didn't get. And we met them somewhere right in the middle."

Sorry Dana, but even Sarah Palin wouldn't approve the lipstick you're putting on this pig.

Pentagon officials, however, said the White House made unprecedented concessions. In addition to allowing Iraq to search cargo and mail under some conditions, the deal bars U.S. forces from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi soil and permits Iraq to prosecute U.S. military contractors, and in some cases perhaps also American troops, under Iraqi law.

Double ouch. Neocons are especially bitter about the ban on attacking other countries, since their whole goal in conquering Iraq was to use it to conquer Iran.

Both sides began working on the deal in the spring, months before the expiration of the United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. forces to operate in Iraq. At the time, the Iraqi government was feeling empowered by its military success against Shiite militias in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. But Washington adamantly opposed concessions to the Iraqis, said a senior military officer who closely monitored the negotiations.

So what changed? Why did Bush stop adamantly opposing concessions?

The provincial elections, which will reshape Iraq's political map, were then scheduled for October. But around July, the Iraqi government postponed them until January, and Iraqi politicians realized they could not agree to anything less than a full withdrawal and still win the elections.

OK to answer the question above, this would just seem to be simple bad luck for Bush - not something under his control.

As Iraqis began asking for more conditions, U.S. negotiators wouldn't relent, the officer said.

Some at the White House blamed an obstinate Pentagon. Pentagon officials said the White House didn't understand what was happening on the ground. "Baghdad looks very different from Washington," the officer told McClatchy. An administration official objected to that characterization, but said "we wasted four or five months."

So who's blaming who? The White House is blaming the Pentagon for being "obstinate," while the Pentagon is blaming the White House for not "understand[ing] what was happening on the ground." Is either view correct, or is it just finger-pointing?

Last month, both sides appeared to agree on a document. However, the Iraqis rejected the document again and demanded the right to search mail and cargo, control airspace and remove any conditions for a withdrawal.

During those months, there were many Corporate Media reports that claimed Iraq had agreed and the deal was done. But all those reports were White House bullshit, as I blogged following each one. If you simply read the Iraqi statements, you knew there was no agreement, especially because Iraq rejected blanket immunity for U.S. contractors and troops as a negation of their sovereignty.

As Obama's chances to be elected president improved, the White House felt it was under more pressure.

Again, this part of the story needs better reporting. Why exactly did Obama's polls affect Bush's position?

Neither the administration nor the Iraqis wanted to extend the U.N. resolution. "It turned into a very peculiar political predicament," the officer said.

This also needs more reporting. Why was Bush opposed to a U.N. extension after the Russians publicly said they wouldn't block it?

"There are a lot of safeguards and caveats on things that some are concerned about," said the senior Pentagon aide. "It sounds like a big giveaway but it's not."

On immunity for U.S. troops, I agree - the U.S. will decide whether to turn soldiers over to Iraq, which means it will never happen. But the other giveaways - especially the fixed deadline and the ban on attacking Iraq's neighbors - are definitely Big.

The White House is expected to release an English translation of the agreement as early as Thursday.

Sorry guys, us bloggers scooped you!

Update 1: Watch Rachel Maddow's interview with McClatchy's Nancy Youssef:

Bush Bamboozles Democrats on Iraq Withdrawal Agreement

Bob Fertik — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:39:12 -0500

Yesterday the Bush-Maliki agreement went before the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight, chaired by Jim McGovern.

There was only one small problem: did the committee actually have a copy of the agreement?

Delahunt also berated the Bush administration for refusing to release an official copy of the agreement to the public.

Perhaps they had a classified version. We got our copy from the Iraq Oil Report.

McGovern seems to be the only Member of Congress familiar with the Constitution, which requires Senate approval of all treaties. He wants to know: is the Bush-Maliki agreement a treaty or not? The Boston Globe reports,

The Bush administration has labeled the pact a "status of forces agreement," which can be implemented without congressional approval.

But here's another small problem: Bush may want to "label" it a SOFA, but the document itself is explicitly not a SOFA! The official title is:

Agreement
Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq
On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq

It is a withdrawal of forces agreement. The words "Status of Forces Agreement" appear nowhere in the document. (No doubt rightwingers would call it a surrender agreement if signed by a Democrat.)

So if it's not a SOFA, what is it? It's just an agreement between George Bush and the Iraqi Government (assuming it passes Parliament, which isn't so certain).

Here's the question Jim McGovern failed to ask: if it's not a SOFA, what in the Constitution or international law gives our President the power to sign this kind of agreement?

And this isn't just a theoretical question. If it's not a Constitutional agreement, is it enforceable under international law? Or is it not even worth the paper it's (not) printed on?

If the Iraqi parliament approves this agreement, U.S. troops and contractors may have none of the protections they believe they have. They could be prosecuted or sued in Iraqi courts or even other national courts.

These questions are way too important for Jim McGovern and other Democrats in Congress to let themselves to be bamboozled by George Bush.

Update 1: Ben Armbruster rightly notes the Iraqi version of SOFA called a 'withdrawal accord' - but so does the American version.

Update 2: Juan Cole:

McClatchy says that despite official Pentagon support for the agreement, some high DoD officials are dismayed at how much authority the agreement gives away to the Iraqis and blame the White House for being so eager for the agreement that they caved in to Iraqi demands.

Update 3: Other SOFA's are called SOFA's:

"Agreement ; Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces". North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, April 1949.
"Status of Forces Agreement:Concluded Pursuant to Section 323 of The Compact Of Free Association; Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands". Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations.
"Status of Forces Agreements between Timor-Leste and Australia, New Zealand and Portugal" signed prior to the deployment of Operation Astute in East Timor in May 2006. This reference also includes SOFAs signed in 2002 between East Timor and the United Nations and between East Timor and the United States.
"US-ROK Status of Forces Agreement" [South Korea]
"US-Japan Status of forces Agreement, 19 January 1960"
"NATO Status of Forces Agreement"

Which means Bush's "Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq" agreement is not a SOFA.

Moreover, the official policy of the U.S. government on SOFA's says:

The SOFA is usually an integral part of the overall military bases agreement that allows U.S. military forces to operate within the host country.

So where is the military bases agreement with Iraq?

Bush Surrenders to Iraq

Bob Fertik — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:01:07 -0500

Breaking: Iraq Oil Report has the original English version of the US-Iraq agreement, which is entitled:

Agreement
Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq
On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq

The agreement sets a firm deadline of December 31, 2011 for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. Of course, in May 2007 Bush declared:

"I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."

Does Bush still believe that? Will the White House Press Corpse ask him? (Note to WHPC: asking Spokesliar Dana Perino is not the same as asking Bush himself.)

dday believes Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn't want to comply with the deadlines in the Bush-Maliki agreement, and wants to pressure Obama into ignoring them.

This isn't some option thrown out at a briefing. This is a signed agreement between the US and Iraq that has very strict demands on withdrawal. Mullen is treating it like some war game scenario that he doesn't like. And he wants a word with Obama.

Did Mullen sign off on the Bush-Maliki agreement, or did Bush ignore his advice? Also, does Mullen think he can override Presidential decisions - either by Bush or by Obama? If so, the time for him to resign is now.

Update 1: According to Helena Cobban, this is Raed Jarrar's English re-translation of the Arabic translation published by Al-Sabah in Baghdad.
http://justworldnews.org/archives/Final_US_Iraq_agreement_1116.doc

In Arabic, the title uses the same words as the English version, although in a different order.

An agreement regarding the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq and regulating the U.S. activities during its temporary presence, between the United States and the Iraqi government

So the document has the same meaning in both languages: U.S. forces will withdraw.

Bush 'Irresponsibly' Sets a 'Date for Failure'

Bob Fertik — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:23:51 -0500

In May 2007, Bush declared (h/t Ryan Powers)

"I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."

Earlier this month, Bush 'irresponsibly' set a 'date for failure' - actually two dates:

The United States army troops should withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later before 31 December 2011, and all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from the cities, villages and towns in Iraq before 30 June 2009, to be stationed in facilities which will be decided by a joint committee to coordinate military operations jmocc.

Is there wriggle room? Absolutely not.

“The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground,” the [Iraqi government] spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.

And the agreement allows the Iraqi government to send our troops home even sooner (h/t Badger):

The United States acknowledges the sovereign right of the government of Iraq to demand the withdrawal of the forces of the Unites States from Iraq at any time, and the government of Iraq acknowledges the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq at any time.

Today Dana Perino called the firm deadline only an "aspirational date." The only part of the agreement that's "aspirational" is Bush's "aspiration" to avoid being blamed for the biggest military disaster in American history.

p.s. As a follow-up, someone needs to ask Perino: so is your departure from the White House on January 20, 2009 only an "aspirational date"?