Bush Agrees To "Cut And Run" From Iraq (That Was How He Put It, Right?)

Despite two bruising days of debate of the draft Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Parliament, the revised US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement looks probable to pass by the end of the year, saving Bush from one final humiliation of having to go to the U.N. to extend the current occupation mandate. The SOFA now calls for a complete US withdrawal by the end of 2011, extends Iraqi jurisdiction over American crimes against Iraqis, and attempts to place numerous constraints on U.S. aggression in the region and within Iraq itself. Daily Kos has a long but informative analysis of the agreement, which I have excerpted below.

The current occupation of Iraq is proceeding under a U.N. Chapter 7 mandate, which is based on the finding that Iraq is a danger to international peace and needs to be governed by a responsible colonial power. The mandate imposes very few constraints on U.S. behavior, to the constant chagrin and violent burning anger of the Iraqi population. But the mandate expires every year, [and should it expire,] necessitates involving the America hating U.N.-- so the U.S . prefers to conduct its occupations pursuant to bilateral agreements with the puppet government [through the use of] Status of Forces Agreements.

The negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq have been grueling, and have been characterized by inevitable Iraqi reluctance to voluntarily cede a portion of their country's sovereignty to the most aggressive imperialist power in the world today, which has already committed countless atrocities against the Iraqi people, and killed or starved around 2 million Iraqis since 1991. The predictable Bush Administration high handedness, incompetence and gaffes have not helped either.

After some typically ugly threats from the various goons in the Bush Administration stating that they would never agree to any further modifications that might expose our criminal troops to any punishment for their actions, Bush decided to eat his shame, and agreed to most of the revisions [proposed by the Iraqis], just to end the pain. While the modifications were modest, there is now no getting around the fact that the SOFA unequivocally calls for a withdrawal according to a firmly fixed timeline, something which Bush has been adamant would be tantamount to a surrender to terrorists.

First, the title of the agreement, which makes it clear that this is indeed a timetable for withdrawal, and vaguely implies that the U.S. is standing in shit. Bush couldn’t even get a concession on the title. Quite a negotiator, this guy.

An Agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America regarding the Withdrawal of the American Forces from Iraq and Regulating their Activities During their Temporary Presence [Deep] in It

First, the hot button, sexy, jurisdictional issues. Who gets to try Americans for crimes against the Iraqi people? Anybody? God maybe?

Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding major and premeditated crimes ... when these crimes are committed outside installations and areas agreed upon and off duty.

However, it appears that despite Blackwater's extensive donations to the Bush campaign, they now join the long list of parties screwed royally by GW.

Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over private contractors which have contracts with the United States and their employees.

Other significant provisions (in terms of how they would affect ongoing operating procedures of the occupation) are as follows:

It is not permitted for the U.S. forces to detain or arrest any person (except the detention or arrest of a member of the U.S. forces or the civilian element) unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi decision issued under Iraqi law implementing Article Four.

U.S. forces are not permitted to search houses or other premises unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi judicial order issued for this purpose with complete coordination with the Iraqi government, except in cases where there is actual combat which comes under Article 4.

This means the U.S. can not longer detain and hold whoever they want for however long they want in black hole prisons all over Iraq, as they are currently doing. And those who are being held must either be transferred to Iraqi custody or be released. A big victory for the forces of Terra, although since the U.S. keeps no list of the people it has locked up, it would be impossible for the Iraqis to verify compliance with this provision.

This provision is a gem, this is why Syria and Iran are excited about this thing passing:

It is not permitted to use Iraqi land, water and airspace as a route or launching pad for attacks against other countries.

And finally, in addition to the much publicized timeline of withdrawal (June 2009 from all cities and villages, December 2011 for the whole country) the agreement contains the following hopeful language:

The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

Before we get excited, we must keep in mind that the U.S. is a notorious violator of its treaty obligations (ask the Native Americans) and that words on paper have never before stopped our brave men and women from defending freedom by doing whatever fucked up things they felt were a good idea at the time. The world lacks any realistic check on U.S. unilateralism, and I am sure no Iraqi is holding his breath for the release of prisoners from the U.S. run secret prisons or for the cessation of warrantless U.S. raids on Iraqi homes.

And, of course, this would not be a Bush document without strong hints of
unconstitutionality. An American constitutional law scholar, who teaches at Berkeley and was still somehow allowed into some Senate subcommittee hearing, thinks that there should be Congressional approval of this bad boy, because it is so much more like a treaty than just a conventional status of forces agreement like the kind the U.S. has with South Korea or Japan.

With the current U.N. authorization for U.S. presence in Iraq expiring at the end of the year, and the US lame duck Congress going on vacation, not wanting any part of this latest steaming pile of Bush, Congressional authorization or formal Senate ratification of the SOFA seems unlikely. Iraq, on the other hand, will continue to be in an uproar over this for a few months at least, until the next outrage. Pragmatically speaking, the Iraqis know that this pact is far superior to the UN mandate under which the US is currently operating, which provides virtually no limits at all on US actions.