As we've learned recently, it seems the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement has encountered some trouble.
From today's Washington Post:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday denounced demands made by the United States to extend the presence of American troops in Iraq, saying that the two sides are deadlocked and far from reaching an agreement.
"We found out that the demands of the American side are strongly violating the sovereignty of Iraq, something we could never accept," Maliki said.
Could this impasse possibly be planned to give W. an out?
The United States currently operates in Iraq under the Congressional authority provided by the authorization to use military force and derives international authority from United Nations Resolution 1790 (pdf) which expires December 31, 2008.
WaPo discussed some of the expiration's legal ramifications and Bush's intention not to renew it back in April. In lieu of continuing U.N. authority the Bush administration has opted to pursue the SoFA with Iraq to provide the legal cover for continuing the U.S. military occupation.
Could this all be a ruse, though? Could the administration be negotiating in bad while intending for the negotions to fail? Upon failure Bush could initiate our withdrawal and lay the blame for any ensuing chaos or violence squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government for failing to "compromise."
The sticking points certainly seem pretty tough:
But Maliki specifically rejected two positions that American officials have signaled are nonnegotiable. He said the Iraqis expected the United States to commit to protecting Iraq from foreign aggression, and he ruled out allowing Americans to be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Actually, I'm a little surprised the administration would object to "protecting Iraq from foreign aggression." What better way to justify the plan for Iran not to mention the additional military spending and defense contracts that would go with it? Having the SoFA in place would certainly make it a lot easier to justify a military response to the slightest provacation. However, such a "defense pact" would certainly raise objections and stronger calls for approval authority from the Senate, and would likely face a tougher sell to the American public. Agreeing to defend Iraq from foreign invasion is a whole different level from maintining a force to pursue terrorists and insurgents.
Point two is even stickier, though. I don't see Bush ever allowing prosecution of U.S. forces in Iraq. Hell, Blackwater contractors even managed to swing immunity from prosecution in U.S. courts. If the Iraqi government stands firm on this issue, and well they should, there may not be a resolution.
Now, I don't really believe this will happen. Bush is far too vested in this enterprise, and it's proving far too profitable to his and Cheney's chums in the oil and defense industries. Perhaps they'll come up with some sort of murky language that will appear to satisfy the Iraqi's demands for jurisdiction but can be contested and parsed by the U.S. enough for it never really to apply. Perhaps we'll see the end of Mailiki's regime and the installment of a new puppet prime minister who will play ball. Something tells me Bush just isn't going to let go.
However, it seems the general election is shaping into something of a massacre for the Republicans. Suppose they decide the only way to turn things around is a sudden reversal of fortune in Iraq? Allowing the U.N. Resolution to expire would surely provide the excuse for Bush to get out and still save face if only in his own twisted and deluded mind. And boy, wouldn't it be ironic if he chose that as the one time his entire administration to actually abide the law, any law?
Well, I suppose I'll just add this to my internal list of tinfoil hat theories.