Hidden Behind The SOFA, Contempt For Congress

By Cernig

The Washington Post reports today on statements from the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who says that the White House has altered the wording of the proposed military agreement with Iraq so as to keep oversight of the deal away from Congress.

The alternative under discussion will pledge U.S. forces to "help Iraqi security forces to defend themselves," rather than a U.S. promise to defend Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Although "it's the other way around," he said, "the meaning is the same, almost."

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed agreement, called the change "a distinction without a difference." Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned whether the accord will constitute a defense treaty requiring congressional ratification and have accused the Bush administration of withholding information on the talks.

Zebari went on to say that Iraqi and Bush administration lawyers decided this was the best way to bypass any ratification problems.

Now, if you are I were a Congresscritter we'd be bloody mad at this obvious show of contempt  but, to paraphrase Rumsfield,  we continue in this war with the Congress we have, not the one we'd like to have. Some will question, few will act.

McCain, of course, is fully on board with the Bush plan. And there's good reason to suspect that a President Obama won't be changing the game much either:

Zebari said Obama told him. Obama "wants redeployment, he wants a timetable" for withdrawal, Zebari added. But "he is not interested to pull all the troops out. He wants a residual force" to continue fighting terrorists in Iraq, protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and possibly continue training Iraqi security forces.

And, by the by, preserve in force the Bush administrations agreement - because without such an agreement such a residual force would be illegal.

We're starting to see what that agreement is going to look like as well. Yes, there will be one despite the posturings for public consumption of Maliki and his elite - they need their American bodyguards too much. According to Zebari, joint "commissions" will deal with such issues as US independent operations ( presumably including US control of Iraqi airspace) and US detention of Iraqis - commissions that will be puppet theatres, as the US still holds all the logistical strings. Without US co-operation very little in the way of repairs, resupply, battlefield medical care, training or heavy support will get done by the Iraqi Army at all and such co-operation will doubtless be on a "you scratch my back, I'll let you scratch yours" basis. To give the Iraqi public a bone, security contractors will be made subject to Iraqi law, as just about everyone except maybe Paul Bremmer, who signed the stupid edict making them immune in the first place, now agrees they always should have been.

And so, as I've been saying since 2005, it's "satrapy without end" in the colonies.

Comments

[Jim Et Al]

The good news is (so to speak) that an agreement such as this rises to the level of a treaty which the Senate is Constitutionally required to approve. I don't see the Senate going to bat for Bush over this, and I would expect President Obama not to feel bounded by the royal edicts of his morally corrupt predecessor...

[Nell]

Yes, there will be one despite the posturings for public consumption of Maliki and his elite - they need their American bodyguards too much.

What prevents Maliki from simply asking for a six-month extension of the U.N. Security Council mandate beyond the end of the year? He doesn't have to sign any agreements with this administration.

[Nell]

And, despite its convenience for punny post titles, please stop referring to the Bush proposal as a SOFA. It is a proposal for indefinite military occupation, and contains provisions that make it wholly unlike any of the existing SOFAs the U.S. has with 80 countries.