Please bear in mind that this is a crucial point:
The decision is seen as a hard-won concession for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki who has taken a tough stand on protecting his country's sovereignty in the pact.
So a victory for Maliki, whose stock as a strong leader for Iraq will rise considerably in the eyes of his countrymen. This is a
good thing.
And for those fine Americans who are outraged, outraged I tell you, at the thought of potential injustice perpetrated on American troops, please let me assure you that in Iraq U.S. troops are always either
1. On their base/"facilities"
or
2. On a mission
There will come a day when that is not so - when the troops can wander freely through the market when off duty. When that day does come - as it has in Germany, Japan, and Korea - then they must obey the laws of the host nation. That's one of many issues that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) defines, and we have them with all countries that host American troops - except for those with whom we are at war or wherein we are acting in some other mandated role (UN peacekeeping operations, or Iraq right now for example).
So it's also nice to see confirmation by SOFA that we aren't at war in Iraq - though I suppose those who've promised to "end" "the war" might be disappointed in that if word gets out. They could have fun with the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Handbook description of a SOFA, however: "an agreement which defines the legal position of a visiting military force deployed in the territory of a friendly state". Pledging to "end the Army's visit to the friendly nation of Iraq" might not have the appeal of pledging to "end the war" but if not completely accurate it is at least more so (and soon more legal) than the current construct. (Sneer if you wish, but we won the war in Iraq a year ago, and the chance of another breaking out has diminished since then - but that's another discussion...)
Those same folks might be unhappy with this detail too:
If the agreement is signed by the two sides and approved by the Iraqi parliament, it will become effective from January 1 and last for three years, during which a phased withdrawal of US forces is outlined.
US combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi towns and villages by June 2009 and pull out of Iraq completely by December 2011, the document says.
"By this time the Iraqi forces will take over all the security responsibility in the country. After June 2009, US forces will stay in the bases outside the villages and cities," the document says.
That "complete" draw down is much more aggressive than the one proposed by Senator Barack Obama, who has
pledged to "end" "the war" but leave the "non-combat"(???) troops in-country:
Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
A few other comments on the document described in the AFP story: virtually everything mentioned is cause for concern. However, assuming the final document is as described (and that's not necessarily a valid assumption) it still must be approved by the Iraqi Parliament, so it's far from a done deal.
Most of my concern is due to the abbreviated descriptions provided in the story. In addition to "complete" (???) draw down, for instance, what exactly does this mean: "Iraq will also be in control of its air space once the agreement comes into effect." I can offer five different definitions of "in control of its air space" off the top of my head. At least one of those (no US Forces performing actual air traffic control) scares the living Shiite out of me (though maybe they've advanced and expanded more than I know). Other possible interpretations (UAV flight approval) raise other concerns. Again, that's one example of many, the AFP report does not provide anywhere near the fidelity required for cogent analysis or additional comment, might be inaccurate, and is assuredly incomplete. Other than that, no problem.
But if I wasn't clear before, here's a two-sentence summary: a SOFA is a legal framework about which - if it is agreed to and passed - lawyers can argue endlessly when the time comes to enforce any specific provision. The brief description in the AFP story is hardly worth commenting on, but I like the part where we have a Status of Forces Agreement since we don't bother with such niceties in countries where we are at war.
All done!
