Bush Administration Rewords Security Agreement With Iraq To ‘Avoid’ Getting Congressional Approval
Bush Administration Rewords Security Agreement With Iraq To ‘Avoid’ Getting Congressional Approval
The Bush administration is currently negotiating a long-term Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government, which would codify “legal protections for U.S. military personnel and property in Iraq” after 2008, when a U.N. security mandate runs out. People in both Iraq and the United States have criticized the deal’s sweeping demands, including 58 permanent bases, “control of Iraqi airspace,” and immunity for U.S. troops and private contractors.
Because of these demands, Iraqi officials said they were likely to miss a July target for coming to an agreement. New remarks by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari reveal, however, that U.S. negotiators have finally backed down and conceded that the estimated 160,000 foreign contractors in Iraq would no longer have immunity.
Additionally, the Bush administration has consistently insisted that it doesn’t need congressional approval for the deal. Yet it appears that this stance was nothing more than posturing, as officials are now reworking the agreement with new language in order to actually avoid going before Congress:
U.S. and Iraqi officials negotiating long-term security agreements have reworded a proposed White House commitment to defend Iraq against foreign aggression in an effort to avoid submitting the deal for congressional approval, Iraq’s foreign minister said yesterday.
The alternative under discussion will pledge U.S. forces to “help Iraqi security forces to defend themselves,” rather than a U.S. promise to defend Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Although “it’s the other way around,” he said, “the meaning is the same, almost.”
As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence J. Korb notes, traditionally, SOFAs provide a “framework for legal protections and rights while U.S. personnel are present in a country for agreed on purposes”; they do not, either directly or indirectly, pledge to defend a foreign government:
The fact that the administration does not intend to submit the agreement for congressional approval is a testament to their own recognition of how the broad the implications of this agreement are and what type of debate it would spark on Capitol Hill and in the country.
As ThinkProgress has noted in the past, this broad SOFA with Iraq may be the Bush administration’s roundabout way of authorizing war with Iran.
Altering the language so as to disguise the true nature of a permanent American commitment to Iraq is irresponsible in the extreme. It is for precisely this reason I have called on the Administration to engage in more frequent and more frank consultations with the Congress as these negotiations move forward.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Bush Admin: SOFA King Corrupt.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:44 amSeparation of powers is just such an inconvenience.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:44 amThe meaning is EXACTLY the same. It’s a difference that makes no difference. The president can not make binding agreements with foreign governments without congressional approval, no matter how they word it.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:47 amAn “agreement” with a foreign country is a treaty, requiring Congressional approval = strike one.
Permanent bases means permanent funding, which must be approved by Congress = strike three.
If there is any military “defending”, Congress is charged by the Constitution with declaring war and calling up the militia = strike three.
This is BushCo we are talking about = strike four through four thousand two hundred twenty eight and counting.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:51 amMADE POSSIBLE BY
Generous funding by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
WITH ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED THROUGH
Pulling Impeachment off the table.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:58 amPerhaps the most damaging tactic to our democracy during the Bush regime has been the adoption and passive acceptance of Orwellian language. The clear intent and meaning of words no longer matters as we see with this SOFA agreement, definition of torture, enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions and countless other significant legal and constitutional issues. This bodes poorly for the continued functioning of the republic under either Republican or Democratic leadership. These trends tend to root in and spread unless clearly and forcefully stopped.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:59 amNote to Iraqis:
Stall this until Jan 09. Then we can agree that we should get the hell out of your country.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:01 amAn “agreement” engendered solely in the Executive provides “authorization” for war? Why don’t we just forgo the pretense of a Republic?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:01 amAdditionally, the Bush administration has consistently insisted that it doesn’t need congressional approval for the deal. Yet it appears that this stance was nothing more than posturing, as officials are now reworking the agreement with new language in order to actually avoid going before Congress.
This is hardly surprising but no less troubling. When has King George not done exactly what he wanted to do regardless of Congress or the American people.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 18th, 2008 at 11:03 amIf it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, paddles like a duck, it’s crapping on your shoes.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:03 amI’m reminded of the famous quote “This’d be a lot easier in a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator”…
June 18th, 2008 at 11:05 amhussein toasterhead said:
Separation of powers is just such an inconvenience
Apparently it’s not much of an inconvenience either.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:167
June 18th, 2008 at 11:06 amWhat part of NO! does Bushitler NOT understand?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:10 amWhen the boyking (he thinks) has never been told NO why should we think he will understand now ? Until he and cheney are totally thrown out we stand in danger of them throwing our troops into another morass. How many more have to die for cheney and george’s power hunger ?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:16 amThose who want to push on to conquer the Middle East, how much are you willing to spend, because the cost will affect republicans, conservatives, bush supporters etc.
[In government] the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other—that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am- James Madison
Federalist 51
Yet again, the objective is not to follow the law or the Constitution, but to come up with some argument, any argument however spurious, which allows them to do what they want. Since Congress is not willing to challenge these absurd arguments, or even uncover them in a timely manner (given that some of them are written in secret), their strategy has worked. The Bush administration engages in government by sophistry.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:17 amTurkish newspaper Cumhuriyat [via alriyadh] revealed why Maliki is playing a time game and why the Kurds want to sign the agreement as soon as possible:
Iraqi government asked both Turkey and Iran to provide written guarantees on security cooperation with Iraq, in exchange for abandoning the security agreement the U.S.
The newspaper uncovered, that Baghdad is waiting for answers from Tehran and Ankara, and will cancel the whole idea of the agreement in case Iran and Turkey provide such guarantees.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:19 ambumpkis, makes sense. Who would you rather trust, your neighbors, or your invaders?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:20 amWhite House commitment to defend Iraq
These are some key words in this line of crap.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:22 amPure and complete BS.
What was that quote again ?
‘War becomes perpetual when it’s used as a rational for peace.’
RUCerious…ya think IRAN may agree ??? Just kidding.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:24 ambumpkis Says:
Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyat [via alriyadh] revealed why Maliki is playing a time game and why the Kurds want to sign the agreement as soon as possible:
June 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
bumpkis – do you have a link to this newspaper (that’s translated into English?)
June 18th, 2008 at 11:27 ambumpkis Says:
Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyat [via alriyadh] revealed why Maliki is playing a time game and why the Kurds want to sign the agreement as soon as possible:
Iraqi government asked both Turkey and Iran to provide written guarantees on security cooperation with Iraq, in exchange for abandoning the security agreement the U.S.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
_______
Now that’s an interesting twist. So the two countries with a paralyzing fear of their own Kurdish populations are proposing a competing security agreement. No wonder the Kurds want to push our agreement through.
Sheesh – what a clusterfcuk.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:28 amU.S. and Iraqi officials negotiating long-term security agreements have reworded a proposed White House commitment to defend Iraq against foreign aggression in an effort to avoid submitting the deal for congressional approval, Iraq’s foreign minister said yesterday.
This would be, pure and simply, a defense treaty, and MUST have congressional approval. The White House cannot commit to anything, because they cannot appropriate funding…again, a function that belongs to Congress alone.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:30 amThis is exactly what the British did in 1932 when they ended their League of Nations Mandate a re-established an Iraqi monarchy utterly dependent on Britain. Despite being declared a sovereign nation the British maintained forces in Iraq that were immune form prosecution or complaint from Iraqis, they had “rights of transit”–meaning they could go anywhere as well as do anything—and of course the Brtis ensured they controlled the oil.
The result was several coup attempts by the Iraqis until 1939 when the British puppet king died. The prime minister then not surprisingly turned to the Germans for support, obliging GB to re-invade in 1941 and maintain an occupation until 1947 when another king was installed–to be deposed in 1958.
These right wing numbnutz keep looking at Germany and Japan as their models completely misguided comparison anyway) in order to justify their schemes instead of looking at the local history staring them right in the face.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:31 amNo link to that Turkish press site in english…I picked the article off another site already translated…
June 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am..as officials are now reworking the agreement with new language in order to actually avoid going before Congress:
It’s not like smart people have not recognized this criminal administration’s contempt and disregard for the opinions of the American people for the past 7+ years now, but wouldn’t this obvious and blatant sh*tting upon and giving the middle finger to our representatives (I mean actually putting it “in writing”) make the lowest knuckle dragging rightwingnut stop for a second and realize THEY, too, are being ignored, sh*t on and laughed at?
Nahhhhhhhhhhh. Lost my mind there for a second.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:46 amI find it hard to believe that Congress can’t do something to stop Bush from doing something like this. The fact that they are sitting there on their hands infuriates me.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:58 amKeith H. Says:
White House commitment to defend Iraq
These are some key words in this line of crap.
I guess I am confused as to why, six years later, we are still defending Iraq. What happened to you stand up we stand down? Why won’t the Iraqi’s stand up. Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s much easier to stand behind US soldiers so we can protect them than it is to set up a system whereby they can protect themselves.
It isn’t going to happen until we leave. They have no incentive.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pmSneaky, aren’t they?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:24 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
bumpkis Says:
Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyat [via alriyadh] revealed why Maliki is playing a time game and why the Kurds want to sign the agreement as soon as possible:
Iraqi government asked both Turkey and Iran to provide written guarantees on security cooperation with Iraq, in exchange for abandoning the security agreement the U.S.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
_______
Now that’s an interesting twist. So the two countries with a paralyzing fear of their own Kurdish populations are proposing a competing security agreement. No wonder the Kurds want to push our agreement through.
Sheesh – what a clusterfcuk.
You got that right.
Anyone want to take odds on Bush trying to negotiate a seperate agreement with the Kurds if Maliki doesn’t blink? I am sure the threat is already on the table.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pmKeltoi Says:
You got that right.
Anyone want to take odds on Bush trying to negotiate a seperate agreement with the Kurds if Maliki doesn’t blink? I am sure the threat is already on the table.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
_______
It wouldn’t surprise me. Though I imagine that wouldn’t be a very popular measure among the Sunnis in the GOI, as it would be a de facto declaration of autonomy for the Kurdish north, a major oil-prodicing sector.
And the Shi’ite south would probably cry foul and want to negotiate their own separate agreements with Iran and the US, further isolating the Sunni Arab region. In which case we’ll probably have to protect both of these from Sunni aggression with the enforcement of no-fly zones.
Meanwhile, we can get the UN to help overcome Iraqi food shortages and reduce the world price of oil with some sort of trading scheme – food for oil, something like that. Of course, to keep all of this in line, we’ll need to put in a much stronger leader – someone who can really hold Iraq together with an iron fist. Maybe someone we gave some CIA training to at one point.
See? Bush is gonna leave Iraq just the way he found it!
June 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pmOf course, to keep all of this in line, we’ll need to put in a much stronger leader – someone who can really hold Iraq together with an iron fist. Maybe someone we gave some CIA training to at one point.
See? Bush is gonna leave Iraq just the way he found it!
I am actually heartened by Maliki’s performance of late. And never forget, he came to power by the ballot box, not a coup d’etat.
Don’t get me wrong, it is indeed a clusterfck, but Maliki is no Saddam.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pmAm I the only one to whom it is beginning to appear to me that the Busheviks have absolutely NO intention of relinquishing power next year???
June 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pmtokin librul Says:
Am I the only one to whom it is beginning to appear to me that the Busheviks have absolutely NO intention of relinquishing power next year???
That has been bandied about much here. But cancelling the election would cause this country to explode. No way it happens, even if Cheney really were Emperor Palpatine.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmlokidog said
wouldn’t this obvious and blatant sh*tting upon and giving the middle finger to our representatives (I mean actually putting it “in writing”) make the lowest knuckle dragging rightwingnut stop for a second and realize THEY, too, are being ignored, sh*t on and laughed at?
Research shows authoritarian followers will allow any behavior on the part of their authoritarian leaders, even that which contradicts their proclaimed “beliefs” and/or “values”.
Fookin nuts innit?
June 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm