Analysis courtesy Gareth Porter
[Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, â€œPerils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnamâ€, was published in 2006.]
WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (IPS) – The final draft of the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces agreement on the U.S. military presence represents an even more crushing defeat for the policy of the George W. Bush administration than previously thought, the final text reveals.
The final draft, dated Oct. 13, not only imposes unambiguous deadlines for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by 2011 but makes it extremely unlikely that a U.S. non-combat presence will be allowed to remain in Iraq for training and support purposes beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces.
Furthermore, Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. Pro-government Shiite parties, the top Shiite clerical body in the country, and a powerful movement led by nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that recently mobilised hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in protest against the pact, are all calling for its defeat.
At an Iraqi cabinet meeting Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said that the agreement would not submit it to the parliament in its current form. But Secretary of Defence Robert Gates told three news agencies Tuesday that the door was â€œpretty far closedâ€ on further negotiations.
In the absence of an agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, U.S. troops in Iraq will probably be confined to their bases once the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.
The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced U.S. negotiating power in the final draft is the willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. contractors and their employees and over U.S. troops in the case of â€œmajor and intentional crimesâ€ that occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement.
But even that concession is not enough to satisfy anti-occupation sentiments across all Shiite political parties. Sunni politicians hold less decisive views on the pact, and Kurds are supportive.
Bush administration policymakers did not imagine when the negotiations began formally last March that its bargaining position on the issue of the U.S. military presence could have turned out to be so weak in relation with its own â€œclientâ€ regime in Baghdad.
They were confident of being able to legitimise a U.S. presence in Iraq for decades after the fighting had ended, just as they did in South Korea. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates had declared in June 2007 that U.S. troops would be in Iraq â€œfor a protracted period of timeâ€.
The secret U.S. draft handed to Iraqi officials Mar. 7 put no limit on either the number of U.S. troops in Iraq or the duration of their presence or their activities. It would have authorised U.S. forces to â€œconduct military operations in Iraq and to detain certain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of securityâ€, according to an Apr. 8 article in The Guardian quoting from a leaked copy of the draft.
When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded a timetable for complete U.S. withdrawal in early July, the White House insisted that it would not accept such a timetable and that any decision on withdrawal â€œwill be conditions basedâ€. It was even hoping to avoid a requirement for complete withdrawal in the agreement, as reflected in false claims to media Jul. 17 that Bush and Maliki had agreed on the objective of â€œfurther reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraqâ€ rather than complete withdrawal.
By early August, however, Bush had already reduced its negotiating aims. The U.S. draft dated Aug. 6, which was translated and posted on the internet by Iraqi activist Raed Jarrar, demanded the inclusion of either â€œtargeted timesâ€ or â€œtime targetsâ€ to refer to the dates for withdrawal of U.S. forces from all cities, town and villages and for complete combat troop withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting that they were not deadlines.
When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Baghdad Aug. 21, the United States accepted for the first time a firm date of 2011 for complete withdrawal, giving up the demand for ambiguous such terms. However, the Aug. 6 draft included a provision that the U.S. could ask Iraq to â€œextendâ€ the date for complete withdrawal of combat troops, based on mutual review of â€œprogressâ€ in achieving the withdrawal.
Because it had not yet been removed from the text, U.S. officials continued to claim to reporters that the date was â€œconditions-basedâ€, as Karen DeYoung reported in the Washington Post Aug. 22.
The administration also continued to hope for approval of a residual force. U.S. officials told DeYoung the deal would leave â€œtens of thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles…for an unspecified timeâ€. That hope was based on a paragraph of the Aug. 6 draft providing that the Iraqi government could request such a force, with the joint committee for operations and coordination determining the â€œtasks and level of the troops…â€
But the Oct. 13 final draft, a translation of which was posted by Raed Jarrar on his website Oct. 20, reveals that the Bush administration has been forced to give up its aims of softening the deadline for withdrawal and of a residual non-combat force in the country. Unlike the Aug. 6 draft, the final text treats any extension of that date as a modification of the agreement, which could be done only â€œin accordance to constitutional procedures in both countriesâ€.
That is an obvious reference to approval by the Iraqi parliament.
Given the present level of opposition to the agreement within the Shiite community, that provision offers scant hope of a residual U.S. non-combat force in Iraq after 2011.
Another signal of Iraqi intentions is a provision of the final draft limiting the duration of the agreement to three years — a date coinciding with the deadline for complete withdrawal from Iraq. The date can be extended only by a decision made by the â€œconstitutional procedures in both countriesâ€.
The final draft confirms the language of the Aug. 6 draft requiring that all U.S. military operations be subject to the approval of the Iraqi government and coordinated with Iraqi authorities through a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee.
The negotiating text had already established by Aug. 6 that U.S. troops could not detain anyone in the country without a â€œwarrant issued by the specialised Iraqi authorities in accordance with Iraqi lawâ€ and required that the detainees be turned over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. The Oct. 13 â€œfinal draftâ€ goes even further, requiring that any detention by the United States, apart from its own personnel, must be â€œbased on an Iraqi decisionâ€.
The collapse of the Bush administrationâ€™s ambitious plan for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top U.S. officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics. They continued to see the Maliki regime as a client which would cooperate with U.S. aims even after it was clear that Malikiâ€™s agenda was sharply at odds with that of the United States.
They also refused to take seriously the opposition to such a presence even among the Shiite clerics who had tolerated it in order to obtain Shiite control over state power.