A Crappy SOFA Posted by Shawn Brimley

According to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, during the recent SOFA negotiations: "The United States asked Iraq for permission to keep troops there to 2015 but compromised with Iraqi negotiators on 2011." 

Question: Why is it that instead of forcing the Maliki government to make political concessions in order to convince us not to leave, we end up making concessions to the Iraqis in order for us to stay? What kind of bizarro upside-down world is this?

   

Dr. iRack has more.

Comments

[Zathras]

The assumption behind the American government's negotiating stance appears to have been that Iraq will blow up again once the Americans leave, a condition that may change some day but probably will not change soon. If you asked Americans negotiating with the Iraqi government how Iraq would blow up, I suspect the answer might begin with the Maliki government attempting to crush its internal opponents; the "concession" from Maliki is that he won't do this as long as the Americans remain.

That's the surface appearance, anyway. Deeper investigation would probably disclose an American position arrived at through a protracted and still ongoing debate within the Bush administration, in which much weight is given to considerations -- such as the President's ability to claim that he has followed an Iraq policy that can plausibly be described as consistent, resolute, etc. -- not directly related to the policy issues involved.

But it does look to me as if a key element in the negotiations has been the changed viewpoint of the Iraqi government's leadership as to its own strength within Iraq. Flush with oil revenues and newly confident after last spring's campaign against the Sadrists, the Maliki government does not appear to regard its position as dependent on the American army, as it well might have as recently as a year and a half ago. This could easily change, if for example the government were to engage in another confrontation with Sadr's forces and lose. With its enemies badly fragmented, however, this appears less likely.

Now, as I've written here before, liquidation of the American commitment in Iraq would be my top priority in this situation. It is not the top priority for the administration; the stability of Iraq -- meaning the perpetuation of recent conditions of diminished violence across the country -- is, and in its judgement that stability would be at risk soon after the American army were not available to prevent the government from falling on its enemies, and to a lesser degree to prevent various other factions in Iraq from falling on one another.

I don't disagree, fundamentally, with this judgement. Actually, I fear that as long as the internal political arrangements of Iraq and the welfare of its people are regarded in Washington as important to the United States the commitment in Iraq will have to be sustained indefinitely in some form -- instead of spending $10 billion a month there, we will be spending $6 billion and congratulating ourselves on pursuing a more responsible policy. Naturally I'd prefer that Iraq evolve peaceably as the American army leaves, but my bottom line is that we cannot afford this commitment and must therefore end it. Both the administration and most of its critics are proceeding as if we can do this -- whether sooner or later -- and still prevent Iraqis from doing some pretty bad things to other Iraqis. We can't.

[Don Bacon]

Very simple answer to your question: Iraq is a sovereign country and needn't compromise nor negotiate with anybody to get their troops out.

[Designer Chloe Handbags]

Very simple answer to your question:

[Tiffany Bracelet]

Very simple answer to your question:

[Tiffany Bracelet]

Very simple answer to your question: