Negotiating Against Ourselves
The United States is in Iraq under the terms of a UN mandate. The U.S. and Iraqi governments are negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that will govern U.S. military activity in Iraq after the mandate expires in December. The al-Maliki government has taken a tough line in public regarding Iraqi sovereignty and a withdrawal timetable for American forces. The Administration, thus far, has said only that the two sides are agreed on the end game – we want to leave and they want us to leave.
The United States is in Iraq under the terms of a UN mandate. The U.S. and Iraqi governments are negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that will govern U.S. military activity in Iraq after the mandate expires in December. The al-Maliki government has taken a tough line in public regarding Iraqi sovereignty and a withdrawal timetable for American forces. The Administration, thus far, has said only that the two sides are agreed on the end game – we want to leave and they want us to leave.
But Democrats are: a) crowing, and b) seeking to undermine the negotiation by offering their own counter-position to the Administration. Portraying Iraq’s desire to formulate a withdrawal date as a defeat for President Bush, senior Congressional Democrats have proposed the Administration announce itself a failure. In The Washington Post this week, Reps. Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro called for extending “the UN Mandate … to maintain the status quo and ultimately, turn this issue over to the next president and Congress … rather than dictating the terms of our long-term relationship with Iraq.”
Aside from noting that the President, not Congress, is Constitutionally charged with negotiating treaties, the present administration appears not to be dictating at all, but listening carefully to what the government of Iraq wants and needs.
It was Congressional Democrats who complained that the al-Maliki government was incapable of governing. Not only has it proven capable, but increasingly competent in matters of both security and governance. The Iraqis have to be mindful of their domestic and regional constraints, and mindful too of their continuing reliance on American arms, training and skilled troops. They have a fine line to walk, and appear to be doing it rather well – which really irritates some people.
The Washington Times reports a lawmaker close to al-Maliki saying Iraq would link the proposed timeline to the return of the provinces to Iraqi security control; when all the provinces are returned, a countdown would begin. Iraq’s security situation then “would be reviewed jointly every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely.” The Times continues, “The proposal … is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timeline for a U.S. withdrawal… However, it also would provide the U.S. some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.”
That sounds like a nuanced and reasonable negotiating position, to which the United States should respond, not collapse. Both sides agree that the talks are operating in good faith and constructive progress is being made. We suspect more progress will be made as the Iraqis realistically consider that the next president and Congress may be far less supportive of Iraqi strength and independence than President Bush has been.
The looming deadline is not troop withdrawal, but elections. The considerations that may make the Iraqi government determined to conclude an agreement with the Bush Administration, seem to be the exact considerations pushing the Democrats to negotiate against the president and against American interests.