More On The US/Iraq Security Deal

By Cernig

Here's a tale of two very different reports about the same news conference. It was held by Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, in Baghdad and concerned negotiations on a US/Iraqi security agreement to extend the occupation beyond the expiry of the UN mandate in December.

The WaPo's version, written by Sudarsan Raghavan, is headlined "Progress Cited on U.S.-Iraq Pacts" and the lede runs:

The United States and Iraq are making progress on complex political and security agreements that would allow U.S. troops to operate in the country next year, Iraq's foreign minister said Wednesday.

"We have reached a comfortable stage of negotiations, and the differences have been narrowed," Hoshyar Zebari told reporters.

However, the NYT's Alissa J. Rubin has as her headline "Iraq Hints at Delay in U.S. Security Deal" and the lede is:

Declaring that there will not be “another colonization of Iraq,” Iraq’s foreign minister raised the possibility on Wednesday that a full security agreement with the United States might not be reached this year, and that if one was, it would be a short-term pact.

American officials, speaking anonymously because of the delicate state of negotiations, said they were no longer optimistic that a complete security agreement could be reached by the year’s end.

At a news conference in Baghdad, the foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told reporters that some headway had been made, but that negotiators were deadlocked over issues like the extent of Iraqi control over American military operations and the right of American soldiers to detain suspects without the approval of Iraqi authorities.

That's quite a difference in tone and content, leading one to wonder if the two Bagdad reporters witnessed a Fortean event - Zebari defying the laws of physics to appear in two places with two different messages at the same time. You have to go all the way to Raghavan's ninth paragraph before he mentions the deal-breakers Rubin led with, and then he plays them down with a weasely "Despite the progress, many hurdles remain that could delay the signing of the pacts". He also writes:

But Zebari said U.S. negotiators were open to the idea of Iraqis controlling their own airspace, as long as they have proper air power and technology.

Nice of the Bush administration to put preconditions on Iraq's exercising sovereignty over its own airspace, isn't it? Especially since the Bush administration made sure that not even a beginning has been made in providing Iraq with such air superiority aircraft, radars or SAM missiles. Indeed, they made sure that the Iraqi military's plans don't include anything of the sort until at least 2012 and probably longer.

So what happens now? Back to Rubin:

Noting that the United States cannot stay in Iraq without legal authorization, Mr. Zebari cited three options: “Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.”

An interim pact, he said, could take the form of a memorandum of understanding and related documents, which would be less extensive than a formal security agreement.

They probably would be appended to the document that President Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, signed last year that laid out the principles for a continuing relationship between the countries.

...Zebari said any agreement would be in place for perhaps a year or two and then subject to review. If no agreements are reached by the end of the year, he said, the sides would have to negotiate an interim deal.

Which, of course, is a sideways way of saying the Iraqis would rather negotiate a deal with the next US president than the current one - because that way they might actually get a deal that gave their sovereignty more than the mildest of lipservice.

And Zebari had some news for John McCain:

Mr. Zebari also indicated that even a full agreement would be short. “We are not talking about 50 years, 25 years or 10 years; we are negotiating about one or two years, so this is not going to be another colonization of Iraq,” he said.

I think Zebari just endorsed Obama. Maybe that was what the WaPo wanted to bury.

Comments

[richard demichele]

The most critical issue that will face the O’bama administration upon taking office will be America’s Middle Eastern policy.
Under O’bama, the American people should be ready for a Middle Eastern policy shift.
For the first time since 1946 the U.S. will fundamentally change its policy in the Middle East as it regards Israel and its foes.
With the U.S. military stretched, oil prices through the roof and the threat of a nuclear Iran, the United States must reassess its 60 year old policy with Israel. The American people are no longer willing to back a pro Israel policy that has cost it so much in blood and money.
This policy which is hinged on “Israel can do no wrong” has put the U.S. square in the eyes of an unpopular war in Iraq and has caused the death of Americans throughout the region.
Additionally it has put us in a negative light throughout the world and has made us an enemy of most if not all of Israel’s neighbors.
With the Bush administration no longer an issue and O’bama having been elected without being obliged to the Israel lobby, O’bama will be able to make real change in this theater.
Look for President O’bama to shift to a middle ground with U.S. policy and one that begins with talks with Iran.
If O’bama is earnest with this move and demonstrates to Iran and others in the area that America intends to be an honest and objective broker then we can expect movement from Iran with its nuclear program and a lessening of interference in Iraq.
O’bama is the candidate of change and stands in a unique historical position to bring real change to the Middle East.
The first step in that direction is to recognize that Israel is a strong nuclear power and that they can defend themselves. That America can no longer act in a bias manner in this area and must begin the process of being an honest broker in both words and deeds.
President O’bama can accomplish both since he apparently has broad support among the American population.
He better than most understands that all of our problems in the Middle East begin and end with our relationship with Israel, which has been viewed by its foes as blatantly bias.
As a country we have to make a choice: continue this policy and be at war or change and become an honest broker.
O’bama has made it clear that he would rather be an honest broker.
Anything less will be a failure on his part.