UPDATED BREAKING: Bush "Agreement" Would Keep Us In Iraq For Decades

I've not seen this diaried and it's a critically important story that needs to be told. This will be short and sweet, I strongly recommend clicking through to the NPR article for all the details. It is deeply concerning.

The Bush administration is seeking... no has found and is working on a defacto treaty with Iraq that would obligate a large US military presence for decades to come. This so called "Declaration of Principals" would be binding on future US presidents so that they could not orchestrate a pullout or significant reduction of our troops. It would include a permanent and massive US military presence including permanent Military bases

The bush admimistration is attempting to cloak the deal by calling it an "Agreement" instead of a Treaty so that it won't require ratification by the US Senate (all treaties with foreign nations must be ratified by the senate), but even the Iraqi's are calling it a Treaty.

This from NPR this morning:

For their part, Iraqi leaders aren't mincing words. They call the upcoming agreement a treaty. At a recent press conference in Baghdad, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari called it a "long-term treaty."

And nobody should be under any illusions of the scope and durations of this "agreement".

"The declaration of principles would appear to commit the United States to keeping the elected Iraqi government in power against internal threats," says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service. "I leave it to the lawyers to determine whether that's the definition of a treaty or not but it certainly seems to be — is going to be — a hefty U.S. commitment to Iraq for a long time."

There is much more in the article and I strongly recommend a good thorough read of it. The link again.

UPDATE 01/24/2008 11:20AM MST by MaverickModerate
A few posters have raised the hopeful and legitimate point that this agreement may not be binding on future adminstrations or by congress. I share the hope, but what alarmed me about this was something that is not stated in the printed article but was brought up in Steve Inskeep's interview. The audio of that interview is available as a link at the top of the article by the way. Anyhow towards the end of the discussion Inskeep asks about this point. The answer given is (paraphrasing now as memory is not precise) that traditionally these types of agreements are maintained by congress and the next administration as it can be injurious to US reputation to not honor them. An example of repercussions due to the Vietname pullout is given.

Now I'm not an expert on that, but the thrust seems to be that it won't be a trivial matter to extracate ourselves from one of these agreements and considerable doubt is cast on whether it would be practical to attempt to do so. Personally, I find it rather concerning and would prefer that we not get into a situation where we have to test that in the first place. So in my opinion, concern over this issue is legitimate.

•  Bush: Let's Rip Up the Constitution

  I bet you he'll do it without Congress ratifying the "non-treaty agreement" that requires American troops to defend the Iraqi Government from "internal and external" forces.

  by BlueTide on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:47:59 AM PDT

  •  First executive order by the next president

    will be to nullify the "Agreement."

    Without Senate approval, this thing has a 11-month shelf-life.

    by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM PDT

    •  I hope so

      I put this in the same league as Bush lobbying Presidential Candidates to not set strict timelines for when they would pull out of Iraq. While it may not be legally binding, we all know how many permanent situations began as temporary. I think the Embassy in Iraq is a total waste, the country is a meat grinder and probably will remain so for years to come.

      by Sacramento Dem on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:35:09 AM PDT

•  Sen. Clinton

  Mentioned this during the debate as something scary that we need to find a way to prevent.

  by bink on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:49:14 AM PDT

  •  And she was right.

    But somehow I don't think writing a stern letter to the President is going to make much of a difference.

    by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:53:39 AM PDT

  •  Hillary also mentioned it in the Nevada debate.

    She hasn't managed to get anyone to pay attention.  I guess NPR noticed it now.  That's nice.

    by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:44 AM PDT

•  It is not a binding

  treaty unless the Senate passes it.  See U.S. Constitution.

  by TomP on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:49:26 AM PDT

  •  re

    Let's hope the Iraqi's don't have something on him, like Verizon does*

    *Because if it is not blackmail, then the alternative is that Reid wants to give Bush and Verizon immunity.

    by cookiesandmilk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM PDT

    •  LOL!!

      The Phone Company is powerful.  :-)

      Thank God the Iraquis have no treaties with Verizon.

      by TomP on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM PDT

      •  See "The President's Analyst" for a laugh

        Kind of a time capsule movie, but I've long thought it had more than a grain of truth.... (he-he).

        by eztempo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM PDT

    •  In either case, Reid is unfit to be

      Senate Majority Leader.

      I have a short list of people I'd rather see:

      1. Dodd

      2. HRC

      (The reason for the second is that the checks and balances between the branches depend upon the "natural ambition of the branches"[1] and an ambitious Democratic(big-D) Majority Leader would make a difference.  I prefer Dodd because of his actual CARE for the Constitution, but HRC would certainly be interesting.)

      [1]Thomas Jefferson

      by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM PDT

      •  re

        yep. At least blackmail, I could somewhat understand, if it is not, then his actions are 1000x time worse.

        by cookiesandmilk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM PDT

      •  What about Biden?

        by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM PDT

        •  Could be cool. Will he pay attention to domestic

          issues or just make the Senate have a presence in foreign affairs?

          I'm skeptical but wouldn't immediately object.

          by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM PDT

      •  Feingold (n/t)

        Starve the corporate beast, buy local!

        by EthrDemon on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM PDT

  •  Bush doesn't "See" U.S. Constitution

    because he doesn't want to.

    by snafubar on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

    •  And if the right people were 'seeing' it

      then impeachment would not be off the table, it would be under way and nearing a verdict by now before this messianic megalomaniac with a narcissistic streak starts Armageddon without us.

      by snafubar on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM PDT

  •  Not a binding treaty but a binding agreement

    According to the article, the Bush administration is attempting to blur the distinction. They are attempting to cloak this as a "Declaration of Principals" of the type the US already has with Korea, Germany, Japan, etc. The president has full power to establish these kinds of agreements and they are binding. Please read the article for full clarification.

    by MaverickModerate on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM PDT

    •  All you need is a "finding" by the next Pres.

      and it's a dead Agreement.

      by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM PDT

    •  Unclear

      The fact that Bush can sign a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq without Congress seems to be beyond dispute. As I understand it, the problem comes because this "Statement of Principles" includes a bit where the US commits to maintain Iraq's internal and external security.

      While we have commitments to maintain the external security of several other places (the UK and Australia come to mind), both were done in the framework of a treaty, and neither include internal security.

      As usual, IANAIL (I am not an international lawyer)

      by Scipio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:59:06 AM PDT

    •  Could Go To Supreme Court

      Bush will argue that its a binding agreement and his cronies in the Supreme Court may agree. However, in Korea, Germany, Japan, etc, US troops are not allowed to defend against "internal" forces. Moreover, where US troops are obligated to defend against external forces, there is a treaty with that particular country(i.e NATO). There is no example where the US is obligated to defend a country from "internal and external" forces without a treaty ratified by Congress.

      by BlueTide on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:02:40 AM PDT

      •  Yes, they address this in the article

        Bush is trying to shoehorn a real defense treaty's worth of stuff into this agreement. "Upgrading" if you will the normal scope of this type of agreement. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but of course one hopes it won't get that far.

        by MaverickModerate on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM PDT

      •  The issue won't get to the SCOTUS til Bush is out

        I'd hope that even Bush's appointees would see that this end-run around Constitutional treaty-making isn't sustainable.  

        After all, it will be a Democratic President's Justice Department they'll be dealing with, and I can't see Scalia being jiggy with a Democrat having all those "unitary executive" privileges and powers -- can you?

        by eztempo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM PDT

  •  As was stated above

    your right of course. But "they" have made Iraq ours, so what matter the language with the way the Constitution has been played fast and loose. Why are they even having the debate on FISA if the Constitution mattered to anyone!

    by peagreen on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:13 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, but since when does that matter

    I heard the same report and the reporters, without much explanation, were talking about how Congressional approval wouldn't be necessary.  And if a future President wanted to ignore the treaty and start pulling out troops, it would be a real embarrasment.  

    I was stunned.  The media was already trying to create a narrative about what a future President should or shouldn't do.  So, while technically, you may be right about the Constitution, it sure seems the Constitution hasn't mattered much lately.  

    If no one enforces the Constition, what good is it?

    by TheC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:58:20 AM PDT

  •  That would be hopeful, except we

    have Harry Reid as Majority leader.  He'll rush it right through.

    by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:59:00 AM PDT

•  Strawberry Fields Forever

  This is the biggest reason why it mattered to slam back the bs propaganda campaign that "the surge" was a success.

  Thank heaven we had those devastating hearings back in September, the famous month of truth, to squelch the whole con.

  Oh, wait -- my bad.  No significant hearings occurred.

  Maybe Congress will have time to revisit the whole thing once they solve the steroids in baseball crisis.

  by Minerva on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:51:32 AM PDT

  •  Lucy in the sky with diamonds

    They're either high, sleep deprived, or being blackmailed.

    No, I actually think it's because they all want to get re-elected and don't want to make any waves.  Why else would ANYONE want to support Lieberman in the Democratic Primary?

    by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:59:24 AM PDT

•  Yet one more lie that had been peddled by this

  administration:

  Tomgram: A Permanent Basis for Withdrawal? Karen Hughes on the Charlie Rose Show: "CHARLIE ROSE: ...they think we are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq? KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job. CHARLIE ROSE: And do not want to keep bases there? KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible."

  Whichever Democratic President on day one needs to rip up this contract and start over. Bush has no problem dismissing treaties, and at least this time it will be for good reason.

  by blueintheface on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM PDT

  •  Well of course

    get "our" people out and leave Halliburton and Blackwater in charge.

    by marykk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:03:13 AM PDT

•  Read the headline and thought, "Breaking?"

  the fact he's been building permanent bases there is old news, from back in april of 2003 at least.

  by snafubar on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM PDT

  •  Yes but what is new is the "agreement"

    that he is trying to set up which would obligate us to maintain those bases with our presence.

    by MaverickModerate on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:56 AM PDT

    •  I was suggesting that we didn't ever build them

      to leave them behind for the natives, so the agreement is only what's been unspoken but implied all along.

      The whole idea is so obvious, the American population as a whole continues to embarass themselves by acting like they had no clue. We have bases in every country we've ever gone to war in, and those troops and those bases have been maintained long after the "conflict" was over.

      I'm not dismissing your story, the link and lead is a good one. I'm just suggesting that so much of this country has it's head in the sand about what we're really doing in Iraq that no amount of truth is going to make them admit their country is doing things we insist we aren't.

      It was about oil, it was always about oil, we screwed the pooch beyond anything still recognizable as a dog, and we are going to reap the spoils of this to give Al Queda the best recruiting endless-tape-loop they've ever had.

      Bin Laden conducted 9/11 because we had US Troops in the sacred holy lands of Saudi Arabia, so what does Bush think more bases in Muslim countries are going to bring to the world? He must either think he can eradicate Islam, or he's simply trying to provoke Armageddon.

      "Bring 'em on", isn't that what the man said?

      by snafubar on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM PDT

•  peak oil

  Y'all will get tired of hearing me say this, but global oil production peaked in May of 2005 and many things that puzzle Kossacks, especially things were Democrats fail to "stand up" to Republicans, are happening not because they lack the spine, but because they see what is coming and agree that repression here will be a better thing that chaos. I'm thinking of FISA and some antiterror measures as I write that ... internal dissent will equal torn up infrastructure we can't afford to replace once the Greater Depression really gets rolling. Take a look at PEMEX bombings in Mexico for a hint at what is to come here ...

  The Iraqi oil fields are #5 on the top five list of producers ...

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Stranded Wind on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

  •  Is this ALL about Cheney's Energy Plan?

    But why destroy the US economy in the process?

    by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:55 AM PDT

    •  asset inflation without wage inflation

       Asset inflation is good for rich people, wage inflation is good for the working class, and there is the seed of it all, planted back during the Reagan years with some assistance from Alan Greenspin.

       The energy plan is an unworkable fantasy based on the oil age ending, yet the power structures from that time surviving. We hit the wall in May of 2005 and we'll never go above those production numbers, but now we're in a more dangerous situation, where the impending Greater Recession will mask the peak oil effects and blunt the calls for renewables. Every minute we wait we're further and further away from the cheap energy needed to build out renewable systems. The dying oil industry will wield its political influence, holding down workable alternatives, until its too late.

      Some parts of the world get it and will have survivable enclaves, pending the pleasure of mother nature. The expectation for the U.S. is that states rights are going to come back and we'll end up splintering into regional federations - Cascadia, the New Lakota Nation, the Great Lakes Compact, and the New Vermont Republic are names that get thrown around when discussing this. Note the lack of names associated with the southwest and southeast - water stress hurricanes, and proximity to the failed state(any day now) of Mexico make it unlikely these areas will survive in their current form.

      Oh, look, Democratic presidential candidates are in favor of incremental improvements in gas mileage long after they're out of office! Mileage isn't going to change, but vehicle miles traveled per capita will nose dive.

        Please, no silly statements about hybrids or plug in electrics - even if we could wave a magic wand and convert all of our existing vehicles in the blink of an eye that will only postpone the consequences and not solve the problem.

       Its a complex, multifaceted issue that would scare the pants right off the voters if they got it, so we get Kabuki up front and repressive measures legislated in back, readying for 25% unemployment and thermostats set to 55 degrees.

      by Stranded Wind on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM PDT

•  Any Real Republican Would be Outraged

  I thought of my late Republican father who loved to repeat Washington's phrase "beware of foreign entanglements." This is the kind of issue that should outrage Republicans as much as Democrats.

  But as our current Democratic primary process shows some people only care about winning and creating their own reality.

  by Better Days on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM PDT

  •  When was the last time you saw a "REAL"

    Republican?

    Answer:  IKE.

    by polecat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM PDT

    •  Of course Ike didn't even know he was a

      Republican for a long time. As for Republicans who act/think like Ike, they're still around, just not in any positions of power.

      by Sacramento Dem on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:41:03 AM PDT

•  I doubt that the Executive branch can pass on

  such a poison pill to the successor administration without some form of recourse available to that new administration.

  At least not without the consent of the Senate.

  What would tie the hands of the next President to just do what Bush has already done - abrogate unilaterally agreements that he didn't like?

  by Ammo Hauler on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:15:43 AM PDT

•  We have been destined to be in Iraq for decades

  since we set foot on Iraqi soil.  Weather this agreement/treaty stands or not, we will be there for decades.  The existing Iraqi "government" will not likely last decades, or even years.  Our presence will, though.

  by CanineCaucus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:18:15 AM PDT

•  But Hillary said Barack voted Present!

  Where are your priorities???

  by Bensdad on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM PDT

•  Impeachment territory. n/t

  by JeffW on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM PDT

•  I think there are a couple issues here

  1. Why would an agreement that was not ratified be binding on the next president? :

  My answer is that legally it is not anymore binding than any executive order - which is not at all. Agreements that are not legally binding can still have power to resist removal, I don't think this will fall into that catagory but Bush clearly hopes to lock American military involvement in Iraq for Decades to come. I would like our troops home yesterday, but I have a feeling Bush's shenanigans (like this agreement) will delay that a bit.

  2. What is the best way to fight this? : Maybe the best approach is to not make a big deal and just recind in mass all of Bush's Executive orders and directives (and agreements) on 1/20/09. I don't know of any that actually made things better.

  by Sacramento Dem on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:50:13 AM PDT