It's a Pact: U.S. Grants Iraq a Withdrawal Agreement

Iraqis bargained over the agreement that would enable American forces to stay in Iraq, demanded 100 changes to American proposals, and won concessions on virtually every one. They have reason to celebrate, as the Iraqi cabinet did after approving the pact 27-1 on Nov. 16. The Iraqi Parliament will be voting on the so-called Status of Forces Agreement next Monday, Nov. 24.

The agreement was necessary because the United Nations authorization that legitimizes foreign troops operating in Iraq expires on Dec. 31. The UN made clear it would not renew it. The Bush administration though it cou'ld make its demand and watch Iraqis sign on the dotted line. It didn't turn out that way.

• Bush did not want a withdrawal date for U.S. troops. Iraqis wanted a Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of all troops. Iraqis won.
• Bush wanted 58 permanent military bases. Iraqis wanted no permanent bases. Iraqis won.
• Bush wanted immunity from Iraqi law for all for U.S. troops and U.S. private-security contractors. Iraqi wanted no immunity for contractors and limited immunity for U.S. troops, and none for off-duty troops involved in serious law-breaking. Iraqis won.
• Bush wanted no restrictions on U.S. troops' operational latitude. Iraqis want the troops restricted to their bases in all urban settings, starting June 30, 2009, except when called out for help. Iraqis won.

• Bush did not want to submit to Iraqi restrictions regarding U.S. troops using Iraq as a launching pad for attacks on other countries. Iraqi wanted such launch-pad attacks forbidden. Iraqis won (which should mean no more attacks on Syria, but more to Iran's worries, no attacks on Iran, at least not from Iraqi bases).
• Bush wanted to maintain the detention system in place. In Iraqi Prime Minister Nur el-Maliki's words, however, "there will be "no detainees anymore, no detention enters anymore, or American prisons for Iraqis, no searches or raids of buildings or houses, until there is an Iraqi judicial warrant and it is fully coordinated with the Iraqi government." (Maliki spoke those words tonight in a 12-minute address to the nation, on television.)
• American troops may be withdrawn sooner than 2011 should Iraqi forces prove able to control the country sooner.
• Iraq and the United States reserve the right to cancel the agreement with a year's notice.

So who's still opposed to the pact? Two distinctly opposed groups, ironically. On the Shiite side, the nationalist-militant Shiite Muqtada el-Sadr is still trying to drum up some hysteria against it, claiming the pact still grants the Americans too much control. On the other hand, many Sunnis, including Sunni politicians (who may boycott the vote next Monday) are opposed to the pact--not because they oppose the American presence, but because they fear that it would end too soon. Sunnis now consider the Americans their last line of defense between themselves and a potential Shiite onslaught. Sunnis, incidentally, also want an amnesty for 16,000-odd Sunni prisoners.

We'll know next Monday how solid the pact is. A mere majority of Parliament won't seal it. Iraqis from all sides agree that it has to be an overwhelming majority to carry the sort of credibility it needs, if it's to stick. As for Barack Obama: It looks like Iraq has done most of the heavy lifting for his promise to withdraw U.S. troops.

See Also:

• What Is a Status of Forces Agreement?
• Al-Maliki Dictates Terms on US Troops Status in Iraq
• Do Permanent US Bases in Iraq Mean a Permanent Occupation?
• Iraq War: Everything You Want and Need to Know
• This Day in Middle East History