Iraqi Parliament Approves Status of Forces Agreement

According to Reuters:

Iraq's parliament on Thursday approved a landmark security pact with the United States that paves the way for U.S. forces to withdraw by the end of 2011, taking the country a big step closer to full sovereignty.

The deal, which parliament linked to a series of promised political reforms and a public referendum next year, brings in sight an end to the U.S. military presence that began with the 2003 invasion.

Well, maybe.  There are certainly some complications.  

First, in order to get support from one of the Sunni voting blocs, the agreement will face a referendum vote next Summer:

The Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal must undergo an additional hurdle next year. It took nine months of difficult talks for U.S. and Iraqi negotiators to craft the agreement.

Under the agreement, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. Iraq will have strict oversight over U.S. forces.

Lawmakers voted with a show of hands, and an exact breakdown of the parliamentary vote was not immediately available.

If the referendum fails, according to the WaPo, "the Iraqi government would be required to give notice for U.S. troops to pull out in July 2010, a year ahead of the timeline outlined in the pact."  None of the initial reports appear to indicate how the referendum will be determined.  Will it be a simple majority vote?  Will it, like the Iraqi constitution, require a certain number of the provinces to approve it?  That's unclear.  

It's also unclear that the referendum will be seen as having sufficient legitimacy with the Iraqi population.  Sadr's bloc opposed the SOFA, and the Sunni support appears tepid at best.  And while many of the news reports are characterizing the vote as overwhelming, this is worth noting:

For Iraq and the United States, the pact’s passage through Parliament by a large majority — more than 140 of some 200 lawmakers present voted in favor...

The NYT, WaPo, Reuters and AP all glide past the fact that 75 of the 275 members of parliament weren't even present for the vote.  Thus, the vote in support of the pact was barely a majority of the members serving in the Parliament.  Nobody explains why on a hugely important vote that roughly a quarter of the parliament didn't even show up.  

In addition to the withdrawal date, the highlights, according to the NYT:

The pact gives Iraq considerable say in what operations American troops can undertake in the country, and sets limits on the Americans’ ability to search homes and buildings, and hold suspects that they detain.

The agreement also allows some foreign contractors to be tried under Iraqi law if they commit a crime, a clause aimed particularly at curbing the behavior of Western security contractors such as Blackwater. In a high profile incident last year, Blackwater shot into a crowd of traffic in Nisour Square in central Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.

American troops will remain subject to American military law if they are on duty and on their bases, but could be prosecuted under Iraqi law if they commit heinous offences while off duty and outside their bases.

A quick perusal of the English translation of the agreement raises some other issues not touched on in these initial news reports.  For instance, there's this:

Iraq owns all the buildings and installations, the nontransferable structures on the ground that are located in the areas and installations agreed upon, including those the U.S. utilizes, constructs, changes or improves.
[...]

The U.S. shall return the rest of the installations and agreed upon areas to the Iraqi government when the validity of this agreement comes to an end or when it is terminated, or at any time prior to that, agreed upon by the two parties, or when the U.S. no longer needs the installations in accordance to what the Committee decrees, without debt or financial obligations.

That seems to dictate that whether American troops occupy them, there will in fact be "permanent bases" in Iraq.  Unlike when Israel demolished its military facilities as it was ending its occupation of Gaza, the US will be required to turn over to the Iraqis all facilities we've built during our occupation.  

There's also this provision, which hints at one of the underlying problems facing Barack Obama in sorting out the mess in Iraq:

In order to support the security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to establishing international peace and stability, both parties seek actively to strengthen the political and military abilities for the Republic of Iraq and to enable Iraq to deter the dangers that threaten its sovereignty and political independence, the unity of its land and its democratic federal constitutional system, they agreed upon the following:

When any external or internal danger emerges against Iraq or an aggression upon it violates its sovereignty, its political stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace or threatens its democratic system or its elected establishments and according to the request of the Iraqi government, the two parties will immediately start strategic talks and according to what they will agree on between them the United States will undertakes the appropriate measures that include diplomatic, economic, military or any other measure required to deter this threat.

While this agreement may call for the removal of US forces from Iraq, the dirty secret few ever talk about is that Iraq will not be able to defend itself from outside aggression.  I wrote about this in January:

Little press attention is devoted to what should happen when—not if, but when--our forces withdraw from Iraq.  There's the obvious concern about how internal security will be maintained (or even attained).  But how could Iraq ever achieve one of the hallmarks of a functioning nation state: the ability to control it's own borders, and if necessary, to repel an outside invader?

American trainers have focused on developing Iraqi capacities for internal security.  But even the minor responsibility that our military has bestowed on the Iraqi defense forces has required massive US logistical and tactical battlefield support.  Essentially, we've been training trigger-pullers, but providing them neither the means nor the expertise to provide their own tactical support like air transport or heavy fire coverage through armor or artillery.  

Until and unless the Iraqis have choppers, tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, they can't fully operate as a modern military force.  Iraq's terrain makes this especially problematic, because Iraq is essentially an urban river valley surrounded by a vast desert that is difficult to defend, with no natural boundaries protecting Iraq from invasions from any direction except the North.  And this doesn't even address other key defensive capabilities such as air defenses and fighter jets.

With massive and stunningly valuable oil reserves, and unguarded and unprotected Iraq would present enticing targets for any number of Iraq's neighbors.  Saudi Arabia or Iran could covet the oil fields in the south, while Turkey could seek to seize the oil fields in the north.  

There's no question we're going to have to leave Iraq.  Barack Obama has committed to leaving Iraq.  But the mess created by George W. Bush and the neocons will not be an easy one to fix.