War Is Over (If Maliki Wants It)

You might have missed it, because there has been an astonishing lack of interest in this story in both the mainstream media and (surprisingly) the liberal blogosphere, but America's military involvement in Iraq may soon and irrevocably be drawing to a close. With timetables for withdrawal and everything!

That's right -- the Iraq war may soon be ending.

And (a key point) -- it may be over no matter who is the next President of the United States. Because the end may come from the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki. But to understand how we got to this point, and what it could mean, we first have to review some recent history, both here and in Iraq itself.

The American military is occupying Iraq under an official mandate from the United Nations. This mandate was first passed in 2004 and has been renewed on a yearly basis since then. It's an arguably thin veneer of international acceptance of the situation on the ground (for what some argue was an illegal war to begin with), but it does provide a subsequent legal framework for our military to (1) be in Iraq in the first place, and (2) do what President Bush commands it to, in order to carry out the "mission" there. It's been called the equivalent of a Band-Aid on a severed limb, but it has been in place for four years now, and has been renewed every year before it runs out at the end of December, for an additional year's time. The current mandate runs out this December 31.

The Bush White House, together with the Iraqi government (for vastly different reasons), decided when the last mandate was renewed that 2008 would be different -- instead of renewing the U.N. mandate for 2009, the goal would be to negotiate a bilateral agreement between the two countries to allow American military forces to operate in Iraq next year. Another U.N. extension was not seen as desirable for either country.

President Bush, in a naked power grab, declared at the end of last year that such an agreement would be between him, personally, and the Iraqi government -- with no need for Senate (or any other congressional) consent or approval. This was a novel reading of the Constitution, but that's no surprise from the Bush White House (or, by this time, shouldn't be). Of course, Senate Democrats disagreed, and vowed to resist (perhaps by writing Bush a strongly worded letter, as they have been wont to do... ahem), but due to Maliki's current bold stand, this may not develop into the checks-and-balances issue the Democrats thought it might become. The Prime Minister of Iraq may avert our own Constitution crisis here at home, in other words.

Since last November, Bush's negotiators have been trying to hammer out two agreements -- a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a "strategic framework" (the Iraqis consider them both as a single agreement, and for the purposes of this article we will also do so here). This ran into a snag when the Iraqis saw Bush's initial draft. Starting about three months ago, the Iraqi negotiators began speaking to the press. Because what Bush wanted was stunning in its overreach.

Originally, Bush wanted 200 American military bases in Iraq. This number was scaled back to 58, which the Iraqis still considered way too many. The U.S. was also demanding to hold any Iraqis it captured without sending them through the Iraqi court system. We demanded immunity from the Iraqi court system not only for our military, but also for security contractors in Iraq (such as Blackwater). We demanded control over Iraqi airspace, and the right to refuel planes over Iraq without the consent or control of the Iraqis themselves. The American military in Iraq would not have to consult or get approval for any actions taken in Iraq from the Iraq government or military. The terms of this agreement were to be open-ended and permanent, and could only be changed after a two-year waiting period (which would lock the next president in for half his term). And, of course, there would be no talk of a timetable or any other date for withdrawal of American troops.

The Iraqis, understandably, balked. By taking the case to their own people (by leaking to the press), they insured that such an agreement would never be approved by the two-thirds parliamentary majority their constitution demanded. One of the members of Iraq's foreign relations committee close to Maliki was quoted at the time by the Washington Post with his reaction: "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq. If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

This is exactly what is happening. The people of Iraq, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, started holding weekly Friday demonstrations against the agreement. This turned into a classic case of "When the people lead, the politicians will follow."

The Bush White House, realizing the disaster that was unfolding, tried belatedly to scale back their demands. They agreed that Blackwater-style contractors would not be immune from Iraqi law. They talked about some sort of veneer of Iraqi military mission control for American forces (more along the lines of "informing" the Iraqis then actually turning over command itself). Iraqi detainees would be turned over to the Iraqi courts... after the Americans were done with them, that is. A big concession was that the U.S. would agree not to use Iraq as a base to launch attacks on other countries -- a big worry in Iraq due to all the saber-rattling towards Iran (but then -- whoops! -- the White House had to backpedal on that one, since it definitely would have required Senate approval).

But none of it was enough to satisfy the vox populi within Iraq. Which is a pressing issue, since it's now a democracy. It's hard for Americans in general to see any foreign policy issue from the point of view of "the other guy," but that is exactly what is necessary here. Prime Minister Maliki is a politician, after all, with his own political problems within his country. He is a member of the Dawa Party, which is part of a very shaky coalition government. Since Iraq is a parliamentary system, his support depends on this coalition, or he will be replaced.

Call it the intersection of Iraqi election politics and American election politics. Now, Bush has been leaning heavily on the Iraqi government to hold local elections by the end of this October. I have commented before on how convenient this date is when you take America's own election calendar into consideration, going as far as predicting this was a planned "October Surprise" intended to give warm, fuzzy photos of Iraqis voting (remember all those "purple finger" images?) -- right before our own elections. Like I said, convenient.

But the Iraqis have been dragging their feet on this, and it is looking more and more likely that local elections in Iraq won't happen in October, and may not even happen this year. The original plan was that after the local elections took place, next year parliamentary elections would follow -- meaning Maliki would be (in essence) up for re-election. And he, unlike Bush, is not term-limited out of a job, so he is assumably doing everything he can to shore up support in fears that his coalition will be booted out. As I said, he's a politician, so this shouldn't come as any surprise.

Without a microscopic examination of the seething cauldron of Iraqi partisan politics (which would take up way too much room here to do it justice), it's safe to say that Maliki knows which way the wind is blowing. He was originally put into office with the support of Sadr, and those throngs of people on the street every Friday chanting "NO!" to a status of forces agreement has undoubtedly been noticed by Maliki. The mood of the Iraqi people has been clear for a long time now, and can be summed up as: "When is the U.S. leaving? When will we be truly sovereign?"

We should all pause here to acknowledge the irony of Iraq schooling George Bush on the limits of democracy. Because the SOFA has to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament, and because they will never vote for a continued occupation by a foreign power (which they see as humiliation), they have changed what was supposed to be an end-run around the American Constitution (Bush stating he didn't have to get the consent of Congress) into a demand fueled by Iraq's voters that America leave. On a timetable.

Which was announced last weekend. The talks for Bush's two permanent bilateral agreements with Iraq have completely broken down. They are desperately trying to salvage something from the wreckage (because, as noted, neither side wants to extend the U.N. mandate again), but it will be a short-term "bridge" agreement that may be only six months long. Maliki, perhaps after consulting with Bush, is now suggesting his own end-run around the Iraqi Parliament, to avoid a vote altogether, for this short-term "bridge" agreement.

But Maliki knows that the only way he'll get away with this is if such an agreement has a date for America to pack its bags and go home. The details of this bridge agreement will likely be made public on the original schedule, by the end of this month. Bush has been left quibbling about the language it will have -- the difference between "timetables," a "time horizon," or (the new phrasing) an "aspirational goal."

But whatever it's eventually called after the semantic word-splitting is done, the result is going to be the same. Both George Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain have stated publicly that "if the Iraqis ask us to leave, then we of course will leave," or words to that effect. Bush even mentioned the possibility in his original "surge" speech in January last year. Neither Bush nor McCain likely dreamed that it would ever happen, certainly not before our election. But now Maliki has called their bluff.

Of course, the bridge agreement's language isn't public yet, and I would be willing to bet that there's some serious arm-twisting happening over it. But this time it may not work. The Iraqis may have reached the point where it doesn't matter what Bush wants any more. They are responding to their own people now, and not the White House.

So, whether Bush and McCain like it or not (and with massive apologies beforehand to John Lennon and Yoko Ono), the epitaph of America's involvement in Iraq may wind up being:

"War is over. (If Maliki wants it.)"

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[95flhtcu]

This isn't a war, it's an occupation. Did noone think that right before the election, there would be some sort of drawdown? This is big news to who? If the repugs can do what Obama is promising before he gets elected, they're in a better position. All the better if Maliki "insists" that way we "won" and the administration can say their plan worked, America is safe etc etc.

[djarvis]

I think that it is a bit ironic that now, after Democrats have been pushing for a troop withdrawal timeline for over a year, the Bush administration may be forced to acquiesce to a timeline because that is what the IRAQIS want. If Congress could have passed their timetable legislation months ago, we could have had most of the troops out by now. We wouldn't have the problem we have now - with not enough troops available to deploy to Afghanistan.

If the conservative neocons had been willing to listen to Democrats who wanted to end the war earlier, we could have saved a lot of lives and a lot of money and would have been set up a lot better to meet the threat of al qaeda in Afghanistan that we now face.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

djarvis -

Personally, I find the irony so thick you can slice it up and serve it on toast. Also the "Ah, Grasshopper, the student has become the teacher" bit about how the agreement would have to be put to a vote in Iraq, but not here....

-CW

[Doofus]

It's a cheap sort of irony however. If the Demos want X, then
the Repos insist that X is a terrible idea, and vice versa.
Such is American politics at the federal level.

The US government still has to reconcile the wishes of
'other parties in the region' (Saudi Arabia, etc.) who
do not want, REALLY DO NOT WANT, Iraq as an
Iran- dominated Shia state on their borders.

That will be true regardless of who's president.

[Doofus]

Maliki is a Shiite, in a Shia-dominated government, with friendly
tendencies toward Iran. Consider Saudi Arabia, who loan US $$$
and provide our oil (& don't *usually* shoot at US), which is Sunni,
with 'unfriendly' tendencies towards Iran. Kind of complicates things.

Once we figure out how to bring the oil along, we will be heading
for the exit.

[Doofus]

This just is... Sunnis are re-joining the Maliki government.

This (obviously?) is an essential step towards achieving
the level of stability in Iraq & the region that allows US to get
out (& claim a measure of success, which would be nice).

Is it going to be long-term, or are we paying them a stipend?

[JXJASON]

Good for Prime Minister Maliki. I hope that the people in Iraq are successful in sending our troops home.

I WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. George Bush lied to us. He is still making trouble for our country by suggesting that we attack Iran.

Keep up the pressure on Congress. Tell them to bring our troops home from Iraq or you will not vote for them in November. And also tell them NO WAR WITH IRAN.

OBAMA 08

[BlackJAC]

Two hundred bases in Iraq alone? Do we even have two hundred bases, period, to begin with? What is that, a base for each individual platoon?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

BlackJAC -

Exactly what the Iraqis said when they saw that figure, I'd be willing to bet. I think the 200 figure was tossed out in order to (1) give us room to expand in the future, should we think we need it, and (2) perhaps be a starting point for negotiations, in full expectation we weren't going to get all we asked for. I'd bet the "58" number is a lot closer to the reality, since it's such a specific figure.

One of the hidden secrets in the Iraq war, almost ignored by the media, is the fact we have built gigantic bases in Iraq already -- square miles of them. Billions of dollars went into this effort, and they're mostly up and running now. You don't see it on the news much, though.

-CW

[BlackJAC]

Still, is there even room in Iraq for fifty-eight bases, regardless of who runs 'em?

[woodguru]

The pisser about the super bases is that they are built to provide a high level of comfort and security for civilian workers. Somewhere around a third of these are allocated as civilian sections.

The question really begs to be asked and answered why was so much civilian contractor infrastructure paid for by our government? They are over there for the thinly viled purpose of making billions of dollars.

War profiteering? You think? There are billions of dollars that needs to be accounted for and those who are caught stealing can go to jail. I don't understand why such a relaxed attitude is taken with thiefs. Steal $200 milion, have to pay back $10 million and lose your contractor status for a year and that's it. Only in america.

While we're at it we need comprehensive reports on the overall amount of money that goes to oil companies in grants, subsidies, tax rebates and credits, and hidden giveaways. The total including hiddens.

[woodguru]

Some of those are little mini and micro bases, they are like little prefab forts that cost us a million each, Iraqui contractors could put them up at $40,000 each

[PALinda]

Thank you for the perspective, Chris. I thought the Congressional funding is what kept the troops there. But it's the funding PLUS the U.N. agreement, apparently. I didn't realize that.

I do have a question for you, if you're inclined to respond. In the event that a planned withdrawal ensues, what about the Blackwater types ? Must Maliki spell them out specifically, in addition to the troop withdrawals? Mut the U.S. specifically withhold funds for them or, perhaps more realistically, provide withdrawal funding for them as well?

Actually, I do not cherish the day that some of these Blackwater thugs return stateside. What havoc they may wreak with too much time on their hands and total freedom in peace. Violence begets violence and those who practiced violence with impunity will surely feel a void in their damaged psyches without the all-too-handy Iraqi punching bags available at a whim. These people should be monitored closely and not given a long leash if they display a proclivity for stateside violence. But I dream.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

PALinda -

That is actually a very good question. The independent security contractors in Iraq (there's more than just Blackwater, that's just the one everyone knows about, which is why I use their name as an example) originally were contracted through the State Department, for security for their people. This (the logic went) freed up soldiers to do better things than guard diplomats. For all intents and purposes, they have morphed into a mercenary armed force in Iraq now (controlled by us).

I think they'll be covered by the same agreement, but (as you suggest) spelled out specifically. They've already been a bone of contention for the immunity from Iraq laws part of it, and the US did back down on that request. Which leads me to believe there will be a section or paragraph or whatever in the agreement which specifically deals with contractor security forces, but not a separate agreement.

-CW

[woodguru]

Oil companies and the refinery support contractors that will be operating there will need substantial security forces. I'd bet that private corporations won't pay like the good ole US of A did, these were the glory years for sure.

It's a shame we're going to be pretty much abandoning such nice and permanent digs. We should be selling any bases that civilian contractors want.

You want to see massive wholesale losses of money just watch how the military leaves everything behind to wholesalers who make fortunes on it. We should be bringing everything but perishables back rather than go through a massive restocking program. It's ridiculous to throw several hundred thousand assault rifles in a pile to be sold at per ton scrap prices when they cost hundreds of millions to replace, and replace them we will.

[researcher]

too much oil to leave

stay the course

we are winning

more troops needed

where have I heard t hat before

oh vietnam home of the miss universe contest

and we called them evil communists

and they have the miss universe contest

nice evil to me lovely women :-)

[mamacat]

My friends died fighting in Vietnam so I could wear clothes made in Vietnam? How absurd. At least President Johnson was smart enough to figure out he had made a mistake. The GOP warmongers are too dumb to figure out that we are fighting in the wrong country, for the wrong reasons, against the wrong enemies.

[Gib]

Irony is right. The Iraqis might finish up with a truly democratic system, not at all the desired outcome from the US point of view.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Gib -

OK, now THAT was funny, I have to admit!

:-)

-CW

[nypoet22]

it just goes to show that no matter the country, politicians will only do their jobs right if someone's there to force them. speaking of which, we need a legitimate, charismatic, well-funded primary opponent for maryland's 5th congressional district. will someone get on the case please?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

nypoet22 -

Hmmm... don't know House districts off the top of my head... you wouldn't be speaking of Steny Hoyer's district, would you?

-CW

[nypoet22]

jackpot, you win the quatloos!

i think many of the poor decisions in the house this election cycle can be traced back directly to the vote for majority leader. if ever anyone deserved to lose in the next primary, i think hoyer would be a good choice.

[loslobo]

It is truly a sad day when the hopes of ending a war of aggression is reduced to wishing the puppet forsakes the puppeteer.

I only hope your focus would turn to the travesty happening in the House of Representatives with the impeachment proceedings. If Vincent Bugliosi can write a book for anyone doubting the legitimacy of Kucinich's efforts, and still be ignorant of Truthers as shown on BookTV this weekend is amazing. When the ridiculous is given as fact, and the obvious is ridiculed; then any illusion of democracy has been pulverized like WTC concrete.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

loslobo -

I've been keeping an eye on the House and Kucinich. Hey, at least he's getting some sort of hearing this time around. We'll see whether they're just a sop thrown to him or an honest attempt to get some answers and grievances aired... could go either way at this point.

-CW

[loslobo]

Nancy said no vote (again)

John Connors will only look into generalities

This is done to keep the fix in and keep Kucinich from bringing up these unpleasantries ever again. If you see any of this in the MSM, they will skew all reporting by qualifying Dennis' efforts that he believes in UFO's.

If anyone thinks it's too little too late, please remember there is never a time limit on crimes against humanity. And any investigation could wake up enough people up to bring the whole gang to justice.

[Krikkit]

You mean, the war is over if Maliki caves to al-Sadr's demands, which it looks like he's doing. Why are all the pundits missing that half of the equation, I wonder? Al-Sadr holds the real power in Bagdhad.

[LizM]

And, that's not all they are missing!

What about the part of the equation that says what we have here is a civil war between and within various Iraqi factions in what is a grand struggle for power and resources?

What about the fact that there is no functioning Iraqi goverment - democratic or otherwise - and there won't be as long as everyone is operating under the fatally flawed premise that there is any reasonable prospect that a strong central government in Baghdad can emerge - now, or in the medium to long term - that has the capacity, or even the inclination, to provide security and services to all Iraqis.

Are we confusing two separate concepts - ending the (civil) war in Iraq and the withdrawal of US forces? Because, absent a muscular diplomatic surge to promote a sustainable political settlement, there is no valid reason to keep any US forces in Iraq - or civilians, for that matter. But, withdrawing US forces without any effort to move toward a political solution will do nothing to end the war in Iraq.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

LizM -

OK, you got me. You're right, I was indeed conflating the exit of American troops with the end of the war itself. But the Lennon/Ono quote was too good to pass up. I throw myself on the mercy of the court....

But I'd be willing to bet the American media (and the public) would also equate the two. Once American troops leave, there will be much less interest in whatever the eventual outcome is, that's my guess.

-CW

[Krikkit]

We have a robust diplomatic effort on the ground at all levels in Iraq and there is nothing to say that can't continue as the troops are organized for withdrawal. The formulation should include the phrase, "as the Iraqi peacemakers stand up, our troops and diplomatic corps can stand down." Visit USIP.org (US Institute of Peace) to get a glimpse of how those efforts are coming along.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Krikkit -

Don't forget, Sadr's followers were the decisive power bloc in the parliament which put Maliki in power in the first place. I debated going into the Iraqi political scene, but decided the article was long enough as it is. But Sadr is indeed, as you point out, a powerful part of that equation. I did point out the demonstrations he's been holding, and the effect they have been having on the Iraqi politicians negotiating with the US. Populism, in whatever its form, usually terrifies politicians.

-CW

[Krikkit]

Chris, al-Sadr isn't just one component of the political scene. He publicly stated that he has reorganized the Mahdi army to take on US troops if we don't leave. He has the power to unleash a new and deadlier bloodbath aimed directly at our troops, and he'll do it. Maliki is being squeezed between the US and our money and al-Sadr and his army.