Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.

Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.

What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.

If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.

All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.

Comments

[Mnemanth]

"Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country. "

So, I don't get it. Is this sarcasm, or are you stating the obvious? It is their country. And while we're spending billions per week in support of this occupation, the majority of that money is going to corporate defense interests and supposed "infrastructure" contractors who either do horrible work, or don't do any of the work that they've agreed to.
We're coming to a point where we're actually going to have to realize that we've gotten ourselves into a big "mess" (you bet), and we'd better get the heck out of there. We haven't accomplished anything, other than making a lot of folks rich, and making a lot of folks dead. And for all of that we want a SOFA that sides with us?
Come on- get real.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Mnemanth,

It is sarcasm and the obvious. This is an "anti-occupation" piece. Thanks for providing all the information that I didn't already know ... now that is sarcasm. I've been writing on this for years, ever since coming home from Iraq. Sorry I can't read your mind and write exactly what your thinking, again, more sarcasm. This is a serious issue, everyone has an opinion, and many personal feelings toward the Iraq conflict. We all know the war and occupation is unjustified and immoral -- that is without dispute, but there are other real aspects that need to be explored.

Read some of my previous pieces, maybe it will give you a better perspective.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080721_IRAQ__THE_REAL_COST_OF_STAYING_THE_COURSE.html

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20081023_The_Obama_challenges.html

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/why-i-fight-and-why-we-all-must.html

[Craig]

Yup, that's the idea. They want us out and are willing to make it painful along the way. Our leaders aren't willing to accept reality, so the troops have to pay for stupdity

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Craig,

Exactly !

V/R
John

[AbrahamSadegh]

Never in a million years would we grant any variations of an agreement called SOFA to another country if we were, God forbid, ever occupied by the forces of another government.

And do not compare the SOFA in an allied country such as Germany or Japan to any similar agreement with the likes of Iraq. I have no doubt that the attitude of our forces in Germany and Japan is in no way comparable to the attitude of those in Iraq or any other so called third world country.

Can you imagine the likelihood of something comparable to Abu Gharib taking place in Germany? Can you imagine our government having the same influence in Germany that it has in Iraq?

By the way it was a similar type of agreement with the Shah that led to Khomeini's opposition and his rise to prominence because he rightfully considered such an agreement an infringement on Iran's national sovereignty.

We should have never gone to Iraq. We do not belong there and we need to get the hell out of there ASAP.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Abraham,

Indeed. I could not have wrote it any better myself. Thanks for the insightful comment.

V/R
John

[deminmo]

Should read "Iraqi", sorry.

[deminmo]

Our troops cannot respond to an attack unless the
Iraqi's give the ok, right? What happens if Iraqi "friendly
fire" results in the death of a service member, are the
Irsqi's subject to our military judgements? And why
again do we need to stay in Iraq, spending billions
making our troops serve 4+ tours?

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

deminmo,

Exactly !! Say it louder.

V/R
John

[wolf58]

John once again thanks for your post. I would like to share something with you and request your help for disabled veterans, my email is [e-mail]. Hope to hear from you.
Wolf

[Pdubya]

John,

Many articles are written discussing Obama's policy in the Middle East. What exacerbates the delusion of U.S. swallowing whole the Obama change theory is the simple play on words: moving troops or changing countries only speaks to tactics and strategy, respectively, not policy.

Our policy will remain the same. Interventionist, first-strike if necessary, will continue to deride freedom in the name of "freedom", as an economic mechanism to erode our sovereignty. Match it against our nation's financial situation and the purposeful destruction of our currency and maybe, just maybe we'll realize it is a non-partisan event. It is wholly a socioeconomic event.

We will be escalating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To do what?....fight the "terrorists"? Smoke out Osama Bin Laden?

O.K.

[Pdubya]

Dear John! I was just thinking of you this very day and how we haven't heard from you in a while. Great article, again. Except this time, it appears as if you've decided to swallow a certain pill, and I do welcome the opportunity to see how you expound on this revelation: we aren't leaving.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Pdubya,

Your comment: "it appears as if you've decided to swallow a certain pill." I get why you are struck with that impression. I could write about my personal feelings until I'm blue in the face. For example, I could post another piece about how immoral and illegal the war is, how we need to get out asap, etc. However, everyone who reads my blogs knows how I feel -- I've always been against the occupation, even when I was on the Kuwait/Iraq border waiting to invade.

This time though, I decided to write about the SOFA and the Iraqi conflict from a different angle, instead of another redundant piece making me sound like a broken record.

I thought my conclusion would have cleared the air:

"Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country."

"All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess."

I wanted to put something out there for the right-wing war mongers, something that will make them scratch their heads and think twice before they again shout out the ridiculous chants of "victory" and "support the troops by letting them win."

I'm happy Obama was elected and I look forward to him making good on his promise of getting our troops out of there.

Always good to hear from you.

V/R
John

[ApolloSpeaks]

WILL OBAMA BECOME THE NEW JIMMY CARTER?

With regard to Iraq George Bush is LBJ and Richard Nixon rolled into one. Like LBJ Bush lead us into the war; and like Nixon he negotiated the terms for our withdrawal. Could this mean that Barack Obama is destined to be the new Jimmy Carter, the President who followed LBJ, Nixon/Ford into the White House? There are many paralells between Carter and Obama which I won't go into now.

[Pdubya]

promises promises, john. don't put money on it.

[Pdubya]

Its called blowback. We will be entrenched in Iraq for many years. Bush helped install a puppet government and Obama will be the new puppet master. We do it all of the time, starting in the Middle Eastern region with the Shah. Our soldiers will be subject to many of the same atrocities we inflicted upon the Iraqi people. And how really can we blame them? We helped create their new civil war. And if you've paid attention to my posts you'll understand it has been by design.

It crosses partisan lines. I see many articles out there discussing who is a risk to our nation....that we need to thwart this or that, or pull in this country to support our efforts in "fighting terrorism". Isn't it lovely that if you plot dots on a map that our bases and current operations are in and around all of the oil fields and pipeline. As if Russia attacked Georgia. Uh huh. As if Pakistan attacked India. Uh huh.

General Gul, ex Intelligence Chief of Pakistan just came out claiming that the Mossad and the CIA staged Mumbai in order to rope India into Pakistan. He makes a very clear and well supported argument. I challenge you to research it.

Go deep John. Hell, you're almost there. Peace. So very good to see your words again.

[LizM]

John,

First off, that was too long to wait between posts! Just kidding...but I do miss your insight into all of this.

Sometimes I think that all of the focus on the SOFA and how it relates to the withdrawal of US forces doesn’t make much sense in the absence of any discussion of what needs to happen - simultaneously - to move toward a sustainable political settlement based on federalism and the Iraqi constitution. Without real progress toward a power-sharing arrangement that ALL of the many Iraqi factions can live with, It just doesn't make any sense to me to keep any US forces - or civilians, for that matter - there, especially under the terms of this SOFA.

Why isn’t there more discussion and debate about how a muscular diplomatic offensive will be a necessary part of any withdrawal? I mean, diplomacy and withdrawal are inseparable components of any sane Iraq policy...unless we want to see an all out civil war that threatens an unpredictable regional conflagration that would give ‘beautiful mess’ whole new meaning!

As for the Iraqi police and security forces...In addition to all of the serious concerns you raise, I don’t understand how national Iraqi police and security forces - corrupt or not - can possibly operate throughout the country when there is simply little or no trust between the sectarian factions or even among them! Am I missing something here!?

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Liz,

The answer to your question is : No, you're not missing anything. I think you are very much in the loop, especially with your comment: "Without real progress toward a power-sharing arrangement that ALL of the many Iraqi factions can live with, It just doesn't make any sense to me to keep any US forces - or civilians, for that matter - there, especially under the terms of this SOFA." Hopefully the new administration can right the wrongs of neocons who started this mess. It is wonderful to hear from you again.

V/R
John

[katielady]

on point as always.. I hope Change.gov reads this..

[TheHandyman]

The use of the military to deal with a criminal problem was stupid to begin with. I know that no occupier of a country they have "liberated" ever thinks they should have to abide by common sense law, but the truth is they should. The war was over a long time ago. Continued military presence has kept Iraq from doing what they need to do. It may be a bloodbath as the 3 factions wage war on each other until the duct settles, something that has been postponed for hundreds of years. Ralph Nader said it best when he said under his Presidency he would give the Iraqi government 6 months to get their act together and then all the troops would leave immediately.

Look at the atrocities committed by US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and see how well our military courts have dealt with it. They can't even deal with American troops murdering American troops. Murder should never be a casulty of war. Abu Grahib was a crime but the real criminals never came to trial. Instead their proxies, the people who followed their orders, went to prison while they retired with huge Government pensions. People like Rumsfield, Rice, Cheney, Bush, Tenant, Hayden, these are the people who should be in prison. It isn't like the Iraqi's don't have good cause to want retribution!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Handyman,

Some important quotes from the blog:

"Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional."

"They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. "

"What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war. "

TIME TO GO.

V/R
John

[peterg76]

That's the problem with pretending Iraq is a sovereign nation not occupied by petromercenaries. A bit of Iraqi sovereignty is bound to slip through.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Peter,

I wrote in the blog: "Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country."

I think we should let them have their country.

V/R
John

[peterg76]

It's unanimous, except for the war profiteers.

[Bob Egan]

Now Bush is over there claiming that "victory" is right around the corner.

Bush is not only leaving a 'mine field' but strewing the whole area with unexploded 'cluster bombs'!

This president still lives in the make-believe world that he has created for himself where ephemeral things like reality and facts do not trouble him.

An 'independent counsel' should be appointed to start writing the "Bush legacy"!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Bob,

You wrote: An 'independent counsel' should be appointed to start writing the "Bush legacy"!

I could not agree with you more.

V/R
John

[LizM]

I'm going on the assumption that an independent counsel or special prosecutor is currently a work in progress...I can't wait for Jan 20th!

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

How dare the Iraqis act like we should follow their rules after we invaded their country and killed their people! The INGRATES!

Removing U.S. troops will not take "years." In case you haven't noticed, when there's a war on, the President of the United States is now King and Supreme Omnipotent Ruler. (Thanks, Bushie, for the precedent.) If Obama says the troops get gone, they're GONE.

Your side lost, last month. Deal with it. You don't get to force your will on the world anymore.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Tom,

You are missing the point. This is not a supportive piece of the occupation -- it is a piece on why we should get out -- right NOW. I'm against our involvement in Iraq, not for it. I hope you are right, and it doesn't take years, if it were up to me, we would have never invaded, but we did, so we should have left yesterday or years ago.

Sorry to disappoint you.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/anti-war-veteran-criticizes-groups-opposed-to-iraq-war-2007-11-28.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCUSFtZeTaI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTTZ7Qt8_20

V/R
John

[jhNY]

But there is a theme of distrust in the iraqis that runs throughout your piece, and a sense of something like outrage that we might be party to any agreement that puts so much power in their hands over our troops there. In that light, your anti-occupation stance seems grounded merely on the idea that the Iraqis aren't to be trusted, rather than the idea that we should have got out yesterday because were wrong to have gone, have done mostly terrible things there and have too much innocent blood on our hands.

But that SOFA agreement at this point, is the only political means by which we can stay on with Iraqi acquiescence, and so long as we stay on, nobody can say we didn't win the war, whatever that could mean by now. To leave is to accept defeat or admit error. Our departing president is pathologically incable of accepting or admitting either.

Hope our incoming president is determined to behave better, and get us out forthwith, as I gather, for your own reasons, you do as well.