If President Bush has his way, the US military will be forced to stay in Iraq indefinitely -- regardless of who wins the presidential election in November. I wanted to draw your attention to an op-ed I wrote in today's Boston Globe, laying out President Bush's worrisome plan:
The Bush administration is moving forward on negotiations to sign a permanent, long-term agreement with the government of Iraq on the role of the US military in future operations, and an agreement is expected to be concluded by mid-July.
The stakes are high, and these negotiations move us in the wrong direction. America has given the Iraqi people nearly five years of blood and treasure. It's wrong for President Bush to try to bind the next president and lock the nation indefinitely into the endless quagmire that the Iraq war has become.
Iraq is not like the majority of other countries in the world. Its government is dysfunctional, and the country is at war with itself. America does not have a long-term military commitment with any other country, and adopting one with Iraq does not serve our national interest.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee this month that the agreement "will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq." Hopefully, the administration's negotiators will concur with his wisdom. But as long as America maintains tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, there is little distinction.
Bush and other administration officials are clearly attempting to downplay the significance of an agreement. They maintain that the final pact will be similar to those the United States has with many other countries, and that Congress does not need to approve it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The president has given US negotiators authority to go well beyond the type of benign agreement that administration officials are discussing in public. The document signed by Bush and Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, outlining the scope of the discussions plainly states that a security commitment can be negotiated, which would obligate the United States to defend Iraq if it is attacked.
Bush knew exactly what he was authorizing when he put his signature on that document. It would be a mistake for Congress and the American public to be lulled into complacency on this critical issue simply because the administration is attempting to assure us that it is nonbinding and, therefore, will have little significance. In fact, any agreement with Iraq is significant. Even Hoshiyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, recognizes the significance of the future agreement and is calling it a treaty.
The United States currently has seven such treaties: the NATO Treaty of 1949; the Australia, New Zealand, and United States Security Treaty of 1952; the Southeast Asian Treaty of 1955; the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of 1948; and bilateral security treaties with Japan in 1960, the Philippines in 1952, and South Korea in 1954. Each of these commitments was made with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, as the Constitution requires for treaties. Such assurances, once made, cannot be easily withdrawn. They must be granted with great care, and only under extraordinary circumstances.
Even if the agreement does not rise to the level of a treaty, it should still be approved by Congress. The fact that conventional "status of forces" agreements are typically not submitted to Congress for approval is not a precedent in this case. Iraq is too important for the United States. Even consultations and classified briefings with Congress are not enough.
Congress should have the opportunity to approve or reject any agreement on Iraq, regardless of what it is called, that affects our troops or national security. With the country so deeply divided on the war and the future course in Iraq, it's wrong for the president to bypass Congress and public opinion.
In 1953, Congress ratified the status of forces agreement with NATO as a treaty, four years after ratifying the NATO treaty itself. President Eisenhower did not bypass the Congress then, and Bush should not seek to do so now.
In 1981, under President Reagan, Congress approved by legislation an agreement committing the United States to the establishment of the multinational observer group in the Sinai desert in the Middle East.
Also during the Reagan administration, Congress approved in 1986 the Compact of Free Association, granting independence to the Republic of the Marshall Islands and to the Federated States of Micronesia. The compact included agreements in the political and economic spheres and a commitment by the United States to the defense of those two newly independent nations.
It would be a mistake, however, to search for the perfect historical analogy to guide US thinking and actions now. Iraq is unique. Any agreement with Iraq that affects the nation well into the future must have the support of the American people and be approved by Congress. Even the Iraqi government has said it will submit the US-Iraq pact to its parliament for ratification.
America has other options. The international authority for our military presence in Iraq, first granted by the United Nations in 2004, was extended for the third time in December and does not expire until the end of 2008. It could be extended again to give the next president the authority necessary to conduct operations in Iraq, pending a decision on what our future relationship with Iraq will be.
Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, has said that Iraq will seek an extension of the current UN mandate if no agreement is reached with the United States by the end of this year. He said, "If we cannot have an agreement by that time, we would have no choice but to go back to the Security Council."
Bush argues that those who oppose these negotiations and seek congressional approval "need to think through exactly what they are saying." He's right about that, and those of us who opposed this war have certainly done so. But the president needs to think more clearly about the consequences of any long-term agreement he makes with Iraq that extends beyond his successor's inauguration, on Jan. 20.
He gambled our national security with his reckless invasion of Iraq, and he should not be permitted to roll the dice again in these negotiations. The last thing America needs is for Bush to cement a secret deal on Iraq, without the support of Congress, that binds the next president, the military, and the nation for years to come.