The US Iraq SOFA

[nerdgirl 0]

The US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that has been negotiated between the US Government and the Iraqi government was approved by the Iraqi cabinet earlier this week. It still needs to be voted on by the Iraqi parliament; in the end, it is likely to be implemented, imo. President Bush has indicated support repeatedly. Negoitiations began (officially) in late May or early June. The SOFA must be in place by 31 December 2008.

The SOFA sets a withdrawal date for US combat troops at 31 December 2011. Whether it’s just a contingent of Marines guarding the US Embassy or something more like the current numbers deployed at bases in Germany, Japan, and ROK (~56,000, ~33,000, & ~26,000, respectively), US troops will still be in Iraq; their role will be changed.

Among the specifications of the negotiated SOFA, however, are provisions that US forces must withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by 30 June 2009. Just over 7 months from now. In addition to the Awakening Councils/Sons of Iraq groups, the movement of US soldiers and Marines (away from FOB) into cities and towns was a critical/crucial aspect of application of counterinsurgency (COIN) theory. (One can also argue the affect of other independent and proximal factors.).

(Unofficial translation from Arabic version of SOFA.)

This means that much of Sen Obama’s campaign proposals w/r/t withdrawal from Iraq will be US policy before he takes the oath of office. He has had no direct input into the SOFA negotiation process. The terms of the SOFA are more restrictive than Sen Obama’s campaign plan, e.g., military advisors are restricted after June next year.

In consideration of some of the commentary offered w/in the thread, “A real report about Iraq Report,” on MG McCaffrey’s info memo to USMA … what is an inversion of the suggested scenarios occur?

Hypothetically, if there is resurgence in sectarian violence or insurgencies due to provisions of an agreement negotiated by the current administration to which Sen Obama had no input or control, with whom should the culpability for foreign policies consequences lay?

NB: Not “who should be blamed” because the ultimate responsibility for sectarian violence & insurgency is with the individuals supporting such actions and those perpetuating and engaging in it, not *any* US administration, its policies, or the individuals deployed to execute and implement lawful US policies.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Hypothetically, if there is resurgence in sectarian violence or insurgencies due to provisions of an agreement negotiated by the current administration to which Sen Obama had no input or control, with whom should the culpability for foreign policies consequences lay?

With whoever impliments and actions the policies.

Quote

NB: Not “who should be blamed” because the ultimate responsibility for sectarian violence & insurgency is with the individuals supporting such actions and those perpetuating and engaging in it, not *any* US administration, its policies, or the individuals deployed to execute and implement lawful US policies.

VR/Marg

But culpabilty is blame.(?) Also, I disagree to a certain extent with your last paragraph.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[downwardspiral 0]

That's great news! This is what we want and Bush is making it happen. The irony is it probably pisses off Obama to no end.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Wow 26 replies in a thread about a pic that has a flag shopped into it and this one gets nothing? This is what everyone wants. Why are we not rejoicing?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

That's great news! This is what we want and Bush is making it happen. The irony is it probably pisses off Obama to no end.

I doubt that.

1. Obama's already been elected.
2. Bush lied to put us there in the first place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

That's great news! This is what we want and Bush is making it happen. The irony is it probably pisses off Obama to no end.

Quote

Wow 26 replies in a thread about a pic that has a flag shopped into it and this one gets nothing? This is what everyone wants. Why are we not rejoicing?

Sorry, I’ve not ‘tended’ better to my thread. My bad. Been busy – vocationally & avocationally. A girl’s gotta play every now-n-then.


As far as the reaction, the State Department, the DoD, and the White House have been quietly hopeful for the last few months. The deal still needs to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. If a deal is not ratified by the Iraqi parliament, it becomes a much, much, much, much more complicated situation. It’s a wise strategic position by the Bush administration to not overtly draw attention to it … less so for US population, imo, than for the impact on the Iraqi population. It’s not a done deal. From that perspective alone, one may not want to claim success yet. State Dept spokesman Sean Howard has been disciplined in cautious optimism. It’s diplomacy.

The Iraqi’s have readily adopted one classic American trait – protesting. The Sadrists are opposed to the deal. And they are protesting it, peacefully for the most part ... thus far.

(For those who aren’t following the SOFA negotiations: if there is no ratified SOFA, after 31 December 2008, we’re illegally occupying the country or we have to go back to the UN Security Council for extension of the resolution under which we are currently in country. Russia is not expected to be cooperative in the UNSC.)

It is my speculation that Sen Obama has been quietly supportive for much of the same reasons. It’s characteristic of “No drama Obama.” It’s also not in his interest to have 1 January 2009 come without any legal mandate.

Some very good commentary & analysis, imo, appended below from last Monday’s PBS Newshour by LTC John Nagl (USA, ret) and Dr. Feisal Istrabadi. Nagl co-wrote the updated FM 3-24 (USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Manual). Istrabadi is a visiting professor of law at Indiana University and previously served as Iraq's deputy representative to the UN.

VR/Marg



Excerpts:

GWEN IFILL: Are you as optimistic that the Iraqis are ready to fulfill what this agreement might require?

JOHN NAGL: No, not at all. The fact is that there's an awful lot of domestic politics being played in Baghdad right now with this agreement.

But in some cities, I believe, American forces will be able to withdraw by June of this coming year, as the agreement says. But in other cities, I think there are going to have to be negotiations and American forces will be required to stick around for a while to guarantee security.

The far-term outlook is also, I think, far too rosy in this agreement. The agreement says that all American forces will be gone by 2011, full stop, no possibility for renegotiation. And that's, frankly, absurd.

GWEN IFILL: … about the American role in this?

JOHN NAGL: Well, the United States has also not covered itself with glory in these negotiations. And I mean no disrespect to the people who've actually been doing the negotiating, some of whom are friends of mine who've done extraordinary work, but we gave up our primary negotiating lever at the start of the negotiations when we guaranteed that we would remain in Iraq longer than the Iraqis wanted us to. [I wonder how many Americans realize that/realized that during the Presidential campaign? I.e., the “100-years in Iraq” vs “bring ‘em home 22Jan09” dialogues (to put it diplomatically) were of less consequence in the context that decisions that had already been made and decisions to which the US would be bound by the SOFA it was negotiating. – nerdgirl]

In fact, by disagreement, what we are doing is doing something I believe is in the United States' national interest, but is clearly even more in Iraq's interest.

But we are putting the lives of our young men and women at risk. We are spending our dollars to provide security for Iraq. And we always had the potential of saying, ‘Here we go no further or we walk away from the deal.’

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Feisal Istrabadi about that. To what degree is 2011, in your interpretation, a full stop? And how much of it is the beginning of -- there will be a residual force that stays and monitors or watches out for diplomatic installations, that sort of thing?

FEISAL ISTRABADI: Well, I'm smiling, because I heard Colonel Nagl say that -- something about it's full stop, no negotiations, or something to that effect. And, of course, in the Middle East there's no such thing as a cessation of negotiations. [I.e., the importance of strategic culture and being cognizant of different cultural ways & norms.-nerdgirl]

So the document does not allow for an extension, but that's not to say that, after elections in 2009, and we're up for parliamentary elections in Iraq in December of 2009, that's not to say that that can't be renegotiated. And I suspect that it will be. There's certainly -- I mean, the agreement does not bar the possibility of an extension, and I think that a rational policy in Washington and in Baghdad will require a renegotiation on this point.

GWEN IFILL: Well, I want you to go look backwards on that a little bit. When you talk about negotiations, these negotiations just to get to this point took some time. What was going on?

FEISAL ISTRABADI: Yes. Well, I think several things were going on. One is, you know, I think it was Dr. Johnson that said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

I think that the current government of Iraq, which has presided over a precipitous fall in the provision of services, in oil production and so on, and has only seemingly been able to provide for sectarianism and corruption, has had to resort to this sort of jingoistic nationalism in an effort to establish its bona fides with the electorate, which it will be facing in January for governor elections and in December of '09 for parliamentary elections.

So I think there was a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors in an attempt on the part of this government to burnish its nationalist credentials to cover the fact that it has fundamentally failed to provide services, it has failed to engender reconciliation between Iraq's various communities, it has failed to take advantage, for instance, as it should have, when the price of oil hit $150 a barrel.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

For Mike – a slightly belated Merry Christmas.
More recently (13 December):

GEN Ray Odierno (who replaced GEN Petraeus as Commanding General of MNF-I) has indicated that “‘We're still working our way through’ how to define combat forces and when soldiers are considered on- or off-duty if they are outside a military base.

“Progress has been made on plans to turn over the heavily fortified Green Zone to the Iraqi government Jan. 1, Odierno said. Both sides have met to transfer responsibility for Iraq's airspace and air-traffic-control centers to Iraq.

“Odierno said a series of elections next year — provincial voting on Jan. 31 and parliamentary elections at the end of the year — would test whether Iraq can attain greater stability.

“‘Right now, things are going OK,’ he said. ‘But until some of these internal tensions can be resolved politically, and so long as there is al-Qaeda and (Shiite) extremists out there who try to exploit political fissures, there's still a potential for increased violence.’”

From Defenselink.com: “U.S. Forces on Track to Be out of Iraqi Cities by Summer, General Says”

“U.S. combat forces are on track to be out of Iraqi cities by June 30 in accordance with the recently signed [SOFA]. ‘In a large part the security agreement is really stating what we’re doing in many places in Iraq already,’ he said.

“Implementation committees made up of representatives of both two countries are being set up to work out the details of executing the agreement.

“‘The bottom line is what we want to prevent is trying to use intimidation and coercion in order to influence the elections,’ he said. ‘I think many Iraqis feel that our presence here provides them stability for their elections. It provides them some confidence.’

“‘It’s about stability. And what we want to do through 2009 is maintain stability inside of Iraq,’ Odierno said.

“Despite improving security conditions, Odierno conceded that there are still challenges and al-Qaida, though weakened, is still able to carry out high-profile attacks such as the one this week in Kirkuk [discussed in this thread - nerdgirl]. Fifty-five Iraqis died in a suicide bombing at a restaurant. ‘All it takes is one suicide bomber … who cares very little for the value of life, and they will do anything they can to garner attention,’ he said. ‘It still shows that it’s still a fragile environment and there are still terrorists that operate inside of Iraq.’”

Since 1 December, US troops have been instructed to seek arrest warrants from Iraqi judges for all but extraordinary detention operations.

From the ‘not for sexy soundbite’ but really important operationally and policy-side: the Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC, everything in the military & DoD has an acronym, ) has not yet been formed as of 26 December. That is the key/critical US-Iraqi Security committee that will lead, promulgate, and implement military policy in Iraq after 1 January 2009. This also illustrative of why smart soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines (1) understand the value of working with rather than belittling or working against OSD and (2) prefer to have smart folks in those positions rather than ideologues.

Btw, the US is not the only nation with whom the Iraqis are signing bilateral agreements: “Iran, Iraq Sign Demining MoU.”

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

More from Defenselink on interactions with the next President - also give it a partisan patina, which usually gets attention.

“[SecDef]Gates Urges Direct Dialogue With President-elect on Iraq”

“Washington and Baghdad have reached a deal stipulating that U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. But as Defense Department leaders discuss the details and timeline of the force drawdown, Gates has urged direct dialogue with President-elect Barack Obama, Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon.”

“On the heels of his trip to the Middle East, Gates flew to Chicago to meet with Obama and his national security team. Attending the meeting was [Navy ADM Mike] Mullen [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], who, at Gates’ request, briefed the group on ‘the current thinking about the way ahead in Iraq.”

“‘The secretary described that conversation, that discussion, as an excellent one,’ Morrell said. ‘He said he feels as though the group has already exhibited excellent chemistry.’

“Morrell noted that Washington and Baghdad at any time could renegotiate the agreement on the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, though there are no plans to do so. But he provided a glimpse into the secretary’s thinking if the timeline were extended beyond 2011.

“‘[SecDef Gates] could see where a force in the size of tens of thousands, as he said, would still be needed to help the Iraqi military continue to grow, continue in its training, and also provide the kind of support that it cannot provide for itself at this point, whether it be through logistics or aviation or intelligence or other means,’ Morrell said.

“‘The focus will be on making sure there is direct communication between the commanders and the president-elect, so that he can make an informed decision about the way ahead,’ Morrell said. ‘The secretary, I believe, wishes to conduct a similar process to the one that he has conducted as these decisions have been made over the past couple of years,’ he continued. ‘[A process] in which the president -- the commander in chief -- gets to hear from virtually every commander with a vested interest in this particular area of the world.’

“‘It means [they] will all get to speak -- if the secretary is able to do this -- directly with the president, so that President-elect Obama gets a wide variety of views, a number of varying perspectives … about what they believe to be the proper course,’ he said.”

In noting that this is the "process" [in which the President hears directly from military commanders] that has been implemented "over the past couple of years," is that a tacit suggestion or acknowledgement that it was *not* the situation before 18 Dec 2006, i.e., when Dr. Gates became Secretary of Defense?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

In noting that this is the "process" [in which the President hears directly from military commanders] that has been implemented "over the past couple of years," is that a tacit suggestion or acknowledgement that it was *not* the situation before 18 Dec 2006, i.e., when Dr. Gates became Secretary of Defense?

VR/Marg

That's how it sounded. It could just mean that Gates wants to continue doing what he's done since being appointed. 'Continuing a process that he has done for the past couple of years' doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't done before him.

‘The secretary, I believe, wishes to conduct a similar process to the one that he has conducted as these decisions have been made over the past couple of years,’ he continued. ‘[A process] in which the

I'm really just playing devil's advocate because your suggestion is how it initially read to me, as well.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[riddler 0]

Quote

This is what we want and Bush is making it happen.

Just a year ago, I hadn't heard too many GOPers saying they wanted to get out of Iraq. In fact, McCain was saying we should be there for 100 years. If Obama had not been elected, partly on a firm withdrawal timeline, if McCain had won, would there still be a withdrawal of forces? I doubt it.

Although we're not a democracy, and most of the time, we have very little say in the government, election years make a difference in American policy. When Clinton won his first term, Ross Perot took almost 20% of the popular vote, based largely on a platform of fiscal responsibility for the US. Although Perot didn't win, Clinton listened, and made a huge effort to balance the budget and reduce our national debt by half.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If Obama had not been elected, partly on a firm withdrawal timeline, if McCain had won, would there still be a withdrawal of forces?

If or how Sen McCain would attempt to renegotiate the SOFA if he was elected is speculation. I don't know. It would be an interesting counter-factual a priori to play out intellectually. How would the Iraqi's respond to a McCain presidency versus an Obama presidency is more pertinent, imo ... as well as domestic Iraq politics.

Negotiations of the SOFA began almost a year ago, before either Sen McCain or Sen Obama was the candidate of their respective political parties. They have had little to no direct influence on the negotiation of the bilateral agreement.

So yes, there would still be some withdrawal of US military forces regardless of the next President. There has alrady been a withdrawal from some Iraqi cities even before the SOFA goes into effect.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Iraqi flag hoisted over Baghdad green zone
Heart of U.S. occupation reverts to Iraqi control
Baghdad’s Green Zone, Basra Airport Returned to Iraqi Control
Iraq takes control of Green Zone
New Year's Day Marks Milestone In Iraq


While that is significant and will get more attention, I found more important (im-ever-ho), the return of more than 2,000 families Iraqis to eastern Baghdad to reclaim homes they had left due to security concerns over the last few years. NB: that’s “families” not individuals. That’s a major indicator of increased security.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[vortexring 0]

I found a thought provoking article regarding the SOFA for you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate

I'd certainly enjoy reading more on 'the secret' 20-year oil contracts.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'