Who Needs Who?

by Eric Martin

As speculated about in recent posts, the Iraqi cabinet has indeed declared the recently submitted draft agreement for the legal status of US forces in Iraq beyond the January 1, 2009 expiration of the UN mandate unacceptable: 

The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that the Cabinet "unanimously agreed that there are necessary amendments which need to be made to the current draft in order to raise the agreement to a nationally acceptable level."

The "nationally acceptable" test was imposed, for the most part, when Sistani stepped in to demand that parliament get to vote on the proposed draft.  Like Spencer Ackerman, I recently received a translated draft of the agreement as submitted.  Spencer's a faster reader, however, and so I'll piggyback on his analysis since I'm in complete agreement:

...It confirms how deeply the Bush administration has been forced to climb down from its timetables-for-withdrawal-equals-defeat position.

Article 25 is the most important one — “Withdrawal of U.S. Forces From Iraq.” The first sub-article reads in full:

The U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories no later than December 31 2011.

That, you’ll recall, is the date Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says George W. Bush insisted upon to save face for John McCain. (Maliki wanted a pullout in 2010, along Barack Obama’s proposed timeline.) But the sixth sub-article shows that it’s not even an ironclad insistence. Here’s the entirety of that sub-article:

U.S. forces may withdraw from Iraq before the dates indicated in this article if either of the two sides should so request. The U.S. government recognizes the Iraqi government’s sovereign right to request a withdrawal of U.S. forces at anytime.

That’s about as total a Bush administration cave-in as I can imagine...I await all the anguished conservative commentary about how Bush just turned his back on five years of stalwart opposition to timetables for withdrawal.

One more thing. A hypothetical President Barack Obama has a lot to work with here. This agreement has a lot to offer an incoming administration that wants out of Iraq. On the other hand, a hypothetical President McCain would have this agreement thrown in his face by the Iraqis again and again.

Recall: Even with these concessions, the Iraqi cabinet is putting up major resistance.  Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Gates is digging in his heels as well:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday expressed "great reluctance" about altering a draft agreement with the Iraqi government that would govern the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after December 31.

"There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process," Gates told reporters.

"I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed," he added, warning that failure to reach a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) or renew the current U.N. mandate for U.S. troops would mean "we basically stop doing anything."

It looks like there might be some mutual bluffing going on.  So here's the question: when push comes to shove, and each side calls the other's bluff, who blinks?  Who needs who more? 

We might get some answers to those questions in the next few weeks/months.

Comments

[MeDrewNotYou]

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/lisa_brokop/who_needs_you.html>This is the closest I could get to a song title for this post. You haven't heard of Lisa Brokop either, have you Eric?

Anyways. What kind of concessions are the Iraqis pursuing? The only big one that comes to mind is some form of control over contractors, esp. folks like Blackwater. Other than that, maybe stuff like don't put up walls in our backyards in the middle of the night perhaps?

[Anderson]

"Whom." Who needs "whom."

[Eric Martin]

Not a song title this time.

Concessions:

They still want more control over prosecution of US military personnel/contractors.

And there could be other demands that I haven't read about as well. Will know more as story evolves.

[tomeck]

Bush and McCain need them more than anything. How else could they try to convince people here that they're "fighting the war on terror?"

Wanted Dead or Alive, indeed!

[tom p]

Bush will blink because Maliki can't afford to. For Iraqi's, it is all about the upcoming provincial elections, and everybody wants the US out.

For Bush... it's about his legacy? No, it's about passing this quagmire on to the next President, and he doesn't really care who it is.

If BO wins in 2 weeks, we will probably see a softening in Maliki's stance, because any SOFA is out the door if BO wins. If McCain wins, the stance will harden, because McCain wants "victory" on his terms, not the Iraqi's.