Did the U.S. get the best deal with the recently completed status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Iraq? The agreement has been finalized and accepted by Prime Minister Maliki's cabinet and is now being debated in Iraq's Parliament. But some U.S. military personnel are privately criticizing the Bush Administration for giving Iraq too much control over U.S. forces.
This SOFA, once approved, will provide Iraq authority over Iraqi airspace, give Iraq potential authority over U.S. military operations and intelligence activities in Iraq, forbid the U.S. from using Iraq as a launchpad to attack Iraq's neighbors, and allow Iraq jurisdiction over U.S. troops for crimes committed outside the U.S. bases.
This is a radically different SOFA from the one the U.S. pressed for at the onset of the negotiations. At that time, the U.S. had wanted an open ended agreement that would allow U.S. forces in Iraq for an indefinite period, the establishment of semi-permanent U.S. military bases, U.S. control of Iraq's airspace and no Iraqi jurisdiction over American military forces or subcontractors.
So, how did the U.S. get so snookered? McClatchy has an article today claiming political timetables played a role in the Bush Administration's willingness to settle for what many are calling a bad deal.
Officials said U.S. negotiators had failed to understand how the two countries' political timetables would force the U.S. to make major concessions that relinquish much of the control over U.S. forces in Iraq. They said President Bush gave in to Iraqi demands to avoid leaving the decisions to his successor, Barack Obama.
At times, "President Bush wanted this deal more than the Iraqis did," said a senior administration official who closely monitored the negotiations.
The officials said the biggest factor in the outcome was the Iraq government's decision to re-schedule provincial elections from October until the end of January, which gave its negotiators strong arguments to drive a hard bargain.
I suspect most folks are happy to see an end date. But one can't help but wonder if the terms of the ratified SOFA won't be so impractical or difficult for the U.S. military command, that some modifications to the agreement won't be sought by the U.S. or some thought given to an earlier departure.
Comments
"Snookered" is the wrong term. It's more like cutting losses. The U.S. did not receive the earlier brazenly arrogant terms first floated because its power over the Iraqi political process is much diminished. Also, go to afsc dot org and read the actual thing. There is plenty of hedge language that the U.S. could use to try to extend its stay or challenge Iraqi jurisdiction. But can you blame the Iraqis for driving a tough bargain after almost six years of their doors being kicked in, millions killed or displaced, their sewers flowing in the streets, and country in general being laid to waste?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!