Forging a Negotiated Path to Iraq's Future

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.

Comments

[Dandy12]

Should there ever be a settlement in Iraq, Iran will play a major role. This administration makes it quite difficult in all respects. It becomes more apparent that this administration doesn't want to conclude our misadventure, only perpetuate it.

[HanFeiTzu]

Senator Kennedy, I'm certain you are aware the US has a well founded history of breaking treaties. One need only look at our history with native Americans. So...

Once we rid ourselves of this war-criminal we can simply break the treaty and this time we have a legitimate excuse; the man is crazy!

[scooperss]

Since taxpayers will be the ones getting the bill, did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, they should have have input into whether or not they want to stay in Iraq another 50 to 100 years?
How about asking the people what they want and then doing their bidding?

[winoohno]

With all due respect Sen. Kennedy, the Dems have had control of the Congress since 2006 and nothing has been done to reign in the Bush administration's sprawling executive powers. The war in Iraq is still going on WITHOUT the troop withdrawals promised to our men & women in uniform. Bush still tries to pay for the war with "emergency supplementals" and no one cries foul.

You recently sponsored legislation entitled "The State Secrets Protection Act" but I have yet to see real movement on this legislation that would go far in bringing the truth to light. Why not concentrate on doing your job in Congress (oversight, policy development, budget negotiations) and not crying to us about how Bush is signing de facto treaties with other countries when you have done nothing to bring him to task for his many crimes against our country.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Perhaps Congress should pass a resolution stating that there shall be NO binding agreements in Iraq (implied or explicit) save those approved through the treaty approval process as specified in the US Constitution.

I know that this should not be necessary, but this maladministration has done end-runs around the laws, customs, and values of the US far too frequently since the Florida vote-counting scandal in 2000 that installed the two perpetrators in office.

[Aaror]

Honestly we shouldn't need to, but it would make sense for a group of senators to point out that any commitment of US forces that is not ratified by congress has the same legal force as toilet paper.
I'm not sure why this is an issue, other than the danger that Iraq might think that Bush is negotiating in good faith and has the ability to back his promises.
If Bush makes an agreement with Iraq that commits troops after Jan 20, 2009, and the next president doesn't like it, the next president can just ignore it. It's not like it would be a treaty.

[duckfan00]

This Bush/Cheney/McCain treaty must not be jammed down our throats as was the Iraq invasion. Congress must get some semblance of a backbone. The worst foreign policy decision in our country's history must not be prolonged and tie the hands of next administration.

[raptor]

"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."

"Open covenants of peace openly arrived at...." Sound familiar?

[joanndarc]

The USA nowdays looks alot like the USSR just before 1980.

[GnitenGoodLk]

Impeachment. The world is watching, and they see US citizens held hostage by this criminal enterprise. Impeach now.

[Macready]

you are so right SNitenGoodLk . . . the chimp and the big dick must be impeached now . . .

[Not Blind]

Dear Senator,
You and others in Congress voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, without weighing the consequences, debating, discussing and investigating the assertions (LIES) of this administration. You and others in congress approved of the FISA bill that would diminish civil and legal rights of citizens, with fake terrorist threats and fears of being labeled terrorist-sympathizers. Congressional members viewed "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka TORTURE, and allowed the administration to continue internationally and Constitutionally banned forms of torture. Congressional members authorized many other unethical, politically expedient crimes of this administration. Our congressional representatives appropriated funds in the trillions of dollars for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Our congressional representatives approved and sanctioned the appointments of justices and the current A.G. who can not and will not find anything "wrong" or illegal with what this administration has done thus far. Congress has caved in, relented, bent over backwards to give this administration unilateral, executive privilege and powers which circumvent or ignore our Constitution, balance of powers, checks and balances without so much as a whimper.
Don't complain, lament, or write about how bad things are now, and will be for the next president. Had you and other members of Congress done their jobs, investigated, debated, and made wise decisions at the time when these absurd policies were enacted, they might not have been enacted.
Our Congress, the MSM and even the dupped citizens who believe the 935 lies of this administration are to blame for approving and appropriating funds, signing away our civil and legal rights, and continuing this fiasco.
So, why complain about the future? Congress has already apportioned and appropriated it away to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex and Israel.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Yes, you can blame Democratic legislators who voted WITH the 'publican majority, but the blame is squarely, unquestionably on the 'publicans. THEY started the war. THEY bankrupted the Treasury. THEY allowed torture. THEY presided over the serious erosion of civil rights. THEY installed crackpot, fascist jurists in the judicial system. Since THEY were voted out of the majorities, THEY have stood between what the people want and its realization. THEY deserve to be voted wholesale out of office. (And it wouldn't hurt my pride to see Democrats who went along replaced in the primaries with some fresh faces, including Mrs. Clinton. Most people must pay for their mistakes, and doing so can be very character-building.)

[crfo7]

uh, TED KENNEDY was one of the ONLY senators to vote AGAINST the war. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

[Macready]

Ted Kennedy and 23 other Senators voted against the illegal invasion of Iraq . . .

[argeec]

Who wrote this for you, Senator? AIPAC?
Why would you ask for "the international authority for our military presence in Iraq" to be extended for our next president?
The majority of Americans don't want our military presence extended beyond 2008 - we want our military out asap!
This is a most disingenuous proposal. The congress can get the troops out of Iraq any time they choose merely by voting to do so.
Your article is counter to your constituents wishes.

[argeec]

The worst thing that could happen is if Bush got an agreement approved by congress. And with AIPAC's control over congress, it might just happen.
No agreement that Bush makes on his own can bind any future US president.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Have I missed something here, Senator Kennedy, I hope you're NOT trying to say CONgress has NOW abrogated their Constitutional oversight responsibility to approve ALL treaties, or that this preznutz has ANY Constitutional Authority to alone make such binding agreements for OUR country.

Accepting in, the first place, the neoCON argument that occupation defense 'agreements' made by this preznutz with an Iraq government installed by this preznutz, a government that has NO hope of survival without OUR military, are even minimally binding upon future administration's, is to suggest that those future Presidents and Congresses participate as conspirators in a crime, JUST as this Senate HAS already done with ex-post facto pardons to telecoms that helped government criminals violate Constitutional Law, before 9/11 ...and for political purposes.

This 'EVERYBODY GOES HOME' crap for Government criminals HAS TO END, before factions in OUR country decide to use these privatized armies here - on us, because we protest their crimes. If the 'Rule of Law' does not apply from the top down to EVERYONE, folks WILL have trouble swallowing that it applies AT ALL,...
to anyone.

NOT a pleasant thought.

[KaneandAbel]

You can start impeachment proceedings. You have many many things that you can start to do that with. There are many acts that he has committed that is justifiably impeachable.

Then he can not proceed with the agreement / treaty / disaster that he wants to bind America to be bound to. Stand up and be counted, Mr. Kennedy! The country needs you and you compatriots to show your backbone and now!

[leftLibertarian]

Senator Kennedy:

You need to tell Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment on the table. The criminals Bush and Cheney must be prosecuted for their acts. Not to do so makes a mockery of justice and disgraces every person who died in their illegal war which was based on lies.

[Sundialsvc4]

Senator, I concur with the others in the opinion that the Constitution has adequately defined this. The President can singularly sign a document on behalf of the country but only the Senate can ratify it.

Period.