The reader will kindly forgive any tendency to rough language or behavior on the part of the site owner...
TMGlogo2006-2007phs-copy.jpg
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
TMGbloglabel1 copy.gif

TMGbloglabel3 copy.gif
TMG MONTHLY ARCHIVES
[-]



TMGbloglabel10 copy.gif

TMGbloglabel2 copy.gif
The Mudville Gazette Feeds

 

Add to Technorati Favorites
Technorati Profile
add.gif
Add to Google
addtomyyahoo4.gif
ngsub1.gif sub_modern5.gif

xml.gif rdf.png atom feed.jpg

digg.jpg

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.

pl-news.gif

tvc_logo_small.png

Mrsg- Greyhawk's Profile
Mrsg- Greyhawk's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge
TMGbloglabel5 copy.gif
TMGbloglabel6 copy.gif
350.jpg
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by!
« Not just the "Air Farce" (Continued) | Main | Gates Stays on at Pentagon? »

November 26, 2008

greyhawk copy sm.png

SOFA Text?

By Greyhawk

Actually, McClatchy calls it an "unofficial translation from the Arabic".

There are some bits that are more interesting than others ("Iraqi airspace control and monitoring will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities immediately as this agreement becomes valid") but two points that have gotten the most discussion (and generated the most speculation) among those not involved in the negotiations are troop withdrawal and legal jurisdiction for U.S. troops and civilians. More on that jurisdiction later. From a quick glance: troops off duty and (not or) off post will be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction - but troops are never both.

As for the withdrawal part, here's Article 24:

Article 24

Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq

Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:

All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

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.

The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.

One might wonder why this "All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province." Is immediately followed by this: "The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009." If the second phrase is taken at face value, the first is practically moot.

We'll see soon enough, I'm sure. What's certain is that President Obama's "16 months" must begin no later than a year from next September. In the meantime, let's look at Article 27:

Article 27

Deterrence Security Dangers

In order to support the security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to establishing international peace and stability, both parties seek actively to strengthen the political and military abilities for the Republic of Iraq and to enable Iraq to deter the dangers that threaten its sovereignty and political independence, the unity of its land and its democratic federal constitutional system, they agreed upon the following:

When any external or internal danger emerges against Iraq or an aggression upon it violates its sovereignty, its political stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace or threatens its democratic system or its elected establishments and according to the request of the Iraqi government, the two parties will immediately start strategic talks and according to what they will agree on between them the United States will undertakes the appropriate measures that include diplomatic, economic, military or any other measure required to deter this threat.

Both parties agree to continue their strong cooperation to strengthen and maintain the military, security and democratic political institutions in Iraq in accordance with what they agree upon, cooperation, supplying and arming the Iraqi Security Forces for the prevention of local and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon the request of the Iraqi government.

Which (among other things) basically means that if the Iraqis ask and we agree, we can leave troops in (or move troops into) Iraq for purposes of training Iraqi forces, fighting terrorism and outlaw groups, or for (internal or external) threat deterrence - to include threats to political stability, Iraq's democratic federal constitutional system, elected establishment, etc. etc.

Assuming that McClatchy has provided an accurate translation (and honestly, the last paragraph quoted above makes no sense to me whatsoever) of the final version of the SOFA, and that it is approved by Iraq's parliament (perhaps today), then McClatchy's own analysis of the agreement is flawed:

President-elect Barack Obama's campaign plan to leave a residual force of some 30,000 American troops in Iraq would be impossible under the pact.

But kudos to them for acknowledging that often-"overlooked" minor detail of his plan.

And speaking of overlooked, don't overlook this: "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."

Any questions?




Posted by Greyhawk / November 26, 2008 7:00 AM | Permalink

1 TrackBack

If you want the REAL lowdown on what is happening with the SOFA, go to The Mudville Gazette where Greyhawk has taken a close look at not only what it means, but very possibly what it doesn’t mean. Great Job Greyhawk! ... Read More

8 Comments

From a quick glance: troops off duty and (not or) off post will be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction - but troops are never both.)

That's the ones behaving themselves, that is. As the place becomes more and more peaceful, there will be more and more troops skylarking out in town to find alcohol and women. And that will mean trouble. The Iraqis justifiably want to have anyone misbehaving under those conditions to be subject to their jurisdiction.

Well everything as always depends upon the 'conditions' at the time, but is this not precisely the type of agreement that we all really wanted from day 1 ? Two sovereign Nations deciding upon the legal conditions for interaction? And an agreement negotiated from a position of increasing stability in Iraq ?

The US does not really need and should not really want a large permanent base for troops in Iraq. That would lead to the same or greater problems as the bases in Saudi Arabia caused. A small base in Kurdistan might be useful if it could be arranged without a lot of bother. But it's hardly critical. If Iraq progresses as we all hope then the bases there will be increasingly redundant, and if it blows up now, I really think that there is nothing much we could do to prevent it anyway. The choices now are largely going to be made by Iraqis. Which again is precisely what we really wanted in the first place. What everyone now hopes is that they are 'good' choices.

What's not to like here, apart from a few quibbles here and there ?

Doug,
Funny, I just made a comment to this very point on the Gates post. Yup, we've pretty much set the trajectory as best we can; little left now but to point, or perhaps nudge (gently, gently.)

"As the place becomes more and more peaceful, there will be more and more troops skylarking out in town to find alcohol..."

...which will be something of a fruitless search in a predominately-Muslim country. 8)

"If the [June 2009] phrase is taken at face value, [December 2011] is practically moot."

Well, what it means is that in June 2009, American forces will withdraw to bases in relatively-remote locations rather than being deployed right in the middle of town. And at the end of 2011, they stay in-country at the sufferance of the Iraqi government, and it's officially stated that they're present at that government's behest (rather than being an occupying army.) Also, off-base operations will happen when the Iraqi government asks, rather than when the American commanders feel it's needed. Basically, in 2011 Iraq will get the same status as any other overseas-deployment location.

duduck
I think you're right, but suppose one or two provinces aren't ready by June? I hope that's not the case', but I see where some interpretive kabuki could ensue...

Addendum to SOF agreement.

Iraq the model has details. I provide a link.

...which will be something of a fruitless search in a predominately-Muslim country. 8)

Many muslim countries have alcohol. For example, Azerbaijan is very proud of its wine industry. In particular, Iraqis are long known to enjoy beer, wine and spirits of all kinds.

Where there is alcohol and where there are women, men will seek them out at great risk. As Iraq gets more and more peaceful, that level of risk becomes more and more acceptable to many men.

I've done a couple of stories here over the past year about liquor stores re-opening in Baghdad. It's one of those "signs of progress"...

350.jpg
Mrs G copy.png

November 26, 2010


America@war
[Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit.

That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary.

From their about page:

The Naval Institute shall remain

INDEPENDENT - A non-profit member association, with no government support, that does not lobby for special interests;

NON-PARTISAN - An independent, professional military association with a mission, goals and objectives that transcend political affiliations; and shall encourage

IDEAS - Through its respected journals Proceedings and Naval History, its conferences, its books and its online content, in support of those who serve.

"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation:

The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism.

Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented.

I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are.

"Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result.

Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web...

And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed.

The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down.

*****

But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:

Closing Blogs is nothing new. So many site's owners just give up on their own. They come and go, you know, these MilBloggers do. Like any other sort of blogger. Many post in the lonely down hours far from home, spill their guts for the world, then abandon their spots when the tour of duty is up. They have lives again somewhere in the world, and no need to share the details. So it goes.

Many are truly gone - no site left at all. "The page cannot be found." Other blogs remain, like abandoned defensive positions in shifting desert sands.

Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down.

If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real.

And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale.

We've already made history, it's time to save it.

(More to follow...)




Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |

TMGbloglabel7copy.gif
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
TMGrecentcomments.gif
  • Greyhawk: I've done a couple of stories here over the past read more
  • Skyler: ...which will be something of a fruitless search in a read more
  • M. Simon: Addendum to SOF agreement. Iraq the model has details. I read more
  • grethawk: duduck I think you're right, but suppose one or two read more
  • DensityDuck: "As the place becomes more and more peaceful, there will read more
  • Greyhawk: Doug, Funny, I just made a comment to this very read more
  • dougf: Well everything as always depends upon the 'conditions' at the read more
  • Skyler: From a quick glance: troops off duty and (not or) read more

MBC2010.jpg

MILBLOGS NEWS

*****

Latest Posts From MilBlogs

*****

milblogsa1.jpg Prev | List | Random | Next
Join
Powered by RingSurf!
TMGbloglabel2 copy.gif
The Dawn Patrol Feeds

 

Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to netvibes Add to Plusmo myaol_cta1.gif

xml.gif rdf.png atom feed.jpg

TMGbloglabel8copy.gif

TMGbloglabel9 copy.gif
Blah Blah Blah
me220.JPG

The Mudville Gazette is written and produced by Greyhawk, who recently retired from 24 years of active duty in the US military, but will maintain this disclaimer: Unless otherwise credited, the opinions expressed are those of the author, and nothing here is to be taken as representing the official position of or endorsement by the United States Department of Defense or any of its subordinate components.

Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house.

I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.

Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.

Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com

andsm.jpg

*****

Tending Distant
Fires


Far from hearth and home, watching
Cold alone but not alone
On distant shore and only wanting
Safe return and little more

What tales we'll tell
When that time comes
When tales can be told

When things grim
Seem far away
When other fires go cold

Some distant sunset, vision fading
Memories remain
And tired eyes gaze 'pon folded flags
While distant drums beat their refrain

Saluting fallen friends whose names
And youth will never fade
Here's to those on other shores,
for them live well, the price is paid

- Greyhawk,
Baghdad,
December 2004