I Wanna be Your Backdoor Plan

by Eric Martin

Some interesting SOFA related goings-on in the past twenty-four hours.  A parliamentary vote on the SOFA scheduled for today was postponed until Thursday after Sunni lawmakers witheld their support pending concessions a number of issues.  The demands put forth by the Sunni bloc (acting in tandem with smaller Shiite parties) include progress on a series of familiar political issues, but there was also a twist of sorts.  From McClatchy:

Sunni parties and smaller Shiite blocs...want to put the pact to a national vote next year to affirm it.

Doing so would give the U.S. at least a year and a half to leave Iraq even if voters demand an immediate withdrawal.

That's because the vote likely wouldn't take place until July, and the security agreement requires each side to give the other notice of at least one year before ending the pact.

The reaction to the referendum concept has been warm, thus far:

"We don't have an objection to that," said Heider al Abady, a member of parliament from the Dawa party. His bloc is one of the groups endorsing the pact as a safe way to end the U.S. occupation without creating a security vacuum.

Which is not altogether unsurprising, considering the fact that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani has conditioned his blessing of the SOFA on the emergence of a broad political consensus in support of the agreement.  If Maliki and the Kurds attempt to push through the SOFA without Sunni or Sadrist support, Sistani might come out against it which would have severe political repercussions for two parties that have used their allegiance to Sistani as their primary selling point in prior elections (frequently including images of Sistani on election-related materials).

Allow me to engage some hypotheticals: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the SOFA passes, but that in order to get broad support for its passage, the parties agree to hold a referendum in July.  Let's also say the SOFA is defeated in that July referendum (not exactly outlandish considering the state of Iraqi popular opinion).  If that were to occur, a 12 month clock for the removal of all US forces would begin ticking in July 2009 (the one year notice required under the SOFA).

Unless the US chose to disregard the results of the referendum and the will of the Iraqi government, those events would have the effect of mandating that all US forces withdraw from Iraq some 18 months after Obama takes office. 

Which would bear a remarkable similarity to Obama's own stated timetable for withdrawal.  If all occurs as described (a big "if" admittedly), the Iraqis will have circumvented an increasingly irrelevant Bush administration.

[UPDATE: The SOFA passed, and the parties agreed to the referendum:

Iraq's parliament approved Thursday a security pact with the United States that lets American troops stay in the country for three more years.

The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal.

The Shiite and Kurdish blocs agreed to a Sunni demand that a national referendum on the pact be held by July 30. A vote against the pact at that time could torpedo the deal.

That's one "if" down, and one to go.]

Comments

[Ugh]

If the SOFA is subject to a referendum, how can the 12 month notice period be binding? Or is it just that if the SOFA fails the referendum, then they will give notice? I guess it must be the latter.

[russell]

I have nothing intelligent to add here other than to say:

Finally, a song I know.

Thanks -

[Eric Martin]

Or is it just that if the SOFA fails the referendum, then they will give notice?

That's it.

As written, the SOFA gives either party to cancel it, upon 12 month's prior notice.

So this agreement to hold a referendum would not necessarily be made part of the SOFA, but would bind the Iraqi government such that if the referendum calls for withdrawal, the Iraqi government would cancel the SOFA (notice period pending).

[Eric Martin]

that is "gives either party the right to cancel it"

[Bill]

A couple of points: when you reference the current Sunni bloc (Accord), readers should note that these Sunni politicians are not particularly representative of the wider Sunni population in Iraq, and are a separate entity from the Sunni Awakening political and military movement out of Ramadi (which sat out the last national elections).

The accord bloc is maneuvering to maintain power, and their only hope of doing this is by delaying and subverting the democratic process, because they don't have the votes. A portion of this strategy is contingent on achieving American disengagement.

In contrast, the Sunnis in the Awakening movement are content with continued American brokerage, because the Americans are the guarantors of both their political interests and are seen as a hedge against Iranian influence.

Fundamentally, while many folks here are eager to get the US out, a priority should be maintaining a US presence/engagement significant enough to guarantee transparent national and provincial elections (perhaps even for 2 cycles).

In addition, I'm not certain that a national referendum would result in a call for quick withdrawal, as many Iraqis see the benefit of US stabilization while wanting eventual withdrawal. But admittedly that might be changing rapidly, as security has improved so much, so fast, and they're feeling their oats.

This is potentially troubling. Think of it with this analogy: when you are prescribed antibiotics for 7 days and you take them for 5, you feel better, stop taking them and get sick again. Iraq is better, but US involvement needs to persist until stability is a sure thing. This might meet the timeline for a majority withdrawal by 2011, or it might not. (a Quds Force leader was apprehended the other week and operations are ongoing in Mosul as we speak, for example)

Large residual forces necessary for concerted ISF development will be needed to 2013 (and beyond), in any case.

[Ugh]

Reuters is reporting the Iraqi Parliament agreed to the SOFA. No word on whether there will be a referendum.

[Eric Martin]

Large residual forces necessary for concerted ISF development will be needed to 2013 (and beyond), in any case.

Well, that doesn't appear to be in the cards, does it.

[Eric Martin]

Ugh: see the update.

[Bill]

Well, that doesn't appear to be in the cards, does it.

Depends on what one defines as "large." I should say "significant." For example, the development of the Iraqi Air Force is going to lag behind any of the timelines you're talking about, so, strictly speaking, there will be Americans in Iraq for some time past 2013. Further, the Iraqi Army and police still have tremendous difficulty with logistics and intelligence, and are dependent on American forces in these areas. Iraq isn't going to kick out that help, no matter the nationalist rhetoric.

In Kuwait there is a huge airbase out in the middle of the desert that "does not exist" in the mind of the locals. I expect a similar scenario in Iraq past the timelines we're discussing here.

[Eric Martin]

Depends on what one defines as "large." I should say "significant."

I can envision a small presence focused on training, but I don't foresee any large contingent past 2011.

And of course, that all depends on the will of the Iraqi government.

[dan k]

In Kuwait there is a huge airbase out in the middle of the desert that "does not exist" in the mind of the locals. I expect a similar scenario in Iraq past the timelines we're discussing here.

Kuwait is a tiny principality awash in oil that has no legitimate way to defend its borders short of external guarantees.

Iraq is a slightly different can of worms, no?

[John Spragge]

FYI, Bill, the Iraqis can get flying instructions (and planes) from people other than Americans. I believe the EU and Russia make airplanes, as do the Chinese and the Indians. Any reason Iraq wouldn't put their air force out to tender?

[russell]

I believe the EU and Russia make airplanes, as do the Chinese and the Indians.

The Indians have a damned good air force.

And they may be training with the Chinese sometime soon.

Thanks -