News Brief: Breakthrough in Iraq/US SOFA agreement

Spread the love

Loading

By all media accounts, what seemed beyond do’able last week, now seems do’able.  No specifics yet as to whether that “do’able” is anything to be celebrated, as the 2nd draft SOFA between the US and Iraq is not available to public eyes.  But reading thru this  Asian Times report … a traditionally “glass half empty” media on US-Iraq issues… the doom n gloom reports of failure have abated for the moment, and the feedback from “the man on the street” of Iraq (a constituency as in the dark as the rest of us) is confined to a less than dull roar.

With multiple deadlines looming (i.e. an expiring UN mandate and the end of the Bush 2nd term) the CIC was keen to accomodate Iraqi desires.   As I’ve pointed out before, the choices were three-fold… come to an agreement,  renew the UN mandate, or… if no agreement.. the US troops would exit rapidly, sans any legal recognizance of their presence in the State.

The latter, despite western media claims and purported polls, was not an option to the Iraqis.   Per Phebe Marr, the Iraqis were just as motivated to find the common ground, fearing the next administration may not be as supportive.

Bush has just six more months left in the White House, meaning that time is more on the side of the Iraqis than the US administration. Recognizing that, and given domestic opposition in Iraq to the deal, Iraqi leaders appear to want to pressure the US to make as many concessions as possible.

~~~

“I think the government in Baghdad wants an agreement while Bush is still in the White House. It is not clear how supportive a new US administration might be of a continuation of the present arrangement. The idea that the Iraqi government wants the US to leave tomorrow is mistaken. Their continuance in power is at stake,” said Marr.

Per Mohammed A Salih, the Asia Times journalist,  we hear plenty of rumours about the US concessions.  Bases down to the “low dozens”,  no immunity for civilian contractors, promises not to use the bases as  launch pads for aggression against Syria or Iran.   Nothing, of course, confirmed as absolute, and no “devil in the details” provided.

Of concern and another thorn of contention?  Iraq detainees.  More specifically, “whether the US military will have the authority to detain Iraqi citizens and hold them in US custody.”  Ironic, in the wake of last week’s SCOTUS decision.  Iraqi detainees would most likely have better treatment and legal due process if held by the US than they would in their own, still patchwork quilt legal system, composed of both old Saddam/new Iraq legislation.

See also The Iraq SOFAs and the SCOTUS opinion