SOFA News

It appears that the SOFA so long in the works has passed the Iraqi Parliment. Juan Cole,

Reuters reports that the Iraqi parliament passed the US-Iraqi security agreement, which stipulates that all US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. of 275 members of parliament, 198 attended and 145 voted in favor. That means it barely passed from the point of view of an absolute majority, though it was a clear simple majority. Apparently the al-Maliki government bowed to Sunni Arab demands that the agreement be submitted to a national referendum, California-style. If that is true, it is possible that it could still be rejected by the Iraqi people. But al-Maliki got it through parliament by painting opponents as implicitly opposing a US withdrawal, and that campaign tactic may work with the general public, too.

The key to whether the populace ends up voting for this will be the spin attached. If al-maliki is able to present this as the best way to get the troops out then there is a decent chance it passes. The Iraqi's want the US out and whichever side is able to make their side the withdrawal side is going to win.

Back home it is not right that there is no official english translation available. It is not right that the congress does not get to revue this. A lame duck president widely despised and who might go down in history as the worst president ever has committed the US to three more years of an unpopular war without allowing for debate or even review of the terms.

Read more...

Iraq Making Painstakingly Slow Progress

A major fault line of Iraqi politics is the sectarian split between Sunni and Shia. After the brutal ethnic cleansing and hardening of tribal loyalties there exists great distrust between large portions of the populations. This distrust caused the minority Sunni to form their own militias and armed forces to fight against not only the American occupiers and the al queda forces operating in Iraq but to protect against Shia Iraqis. The drop in violence that accompanied the surge had many contributing factors and one of these was putting these Sunni forces onto the American payroll, paying them not to shoot at us and to fight on our behalf in some instances. Now as we prepare to leave Iraq there is concern over what happens to the 100,000 sunni we have been paying.

It appears that the melding of the 100,000 strong sunni force known as the son's of iraq is actually being integrated into the Iraq police force.

Iraq's ruling Shiites still view the fighters with suspicion. The hostility reflects the deep mistrust between the country's newly assertive Shiite majority and the onetime Sunni elite, who are angry about their fall from power. If the government alienates the Sunni paramilitary fighters, who number nearly 100,000 countrywide, the fighters could restart their insurgency.

But as the U.S. military prepares to start pulling out of the country, responsibility for the Sons of Iraq was transferred to the Iraqi army. The payments Monday marked the last step in the transition.

"Today's a tremendous day," said Brig. Gen. William Grimsley, deputy commander of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, whose area encompasses Baghdad. He and other U.S. military officials played down concerns expressed by many of the Sunni paramilitary members that the Iraqi government might renege on vows to find them jobs in the future. "We're not worried, necessarily, but it's something we all need to watch long-term," Grimsley said.

The first of the paydays is taking place at 36 stations in west Baghdad. All 21,000 of the paramilitary members in the area controlled by the Iraqi army's 6th Division are to be paid by next Monday.

Other provinces will soon follow. The integration is not perfect however as the sunni fighters have yet to be given a chance at any command or higher level positions. this has added to the distrust between the two camps. Freezing the sunni out of the officer corp is not a viable long term solution for a country struggling with sectarian violence. Segregation is not an effective way of reducing tensions between rival factions.

Keeping the pay coming is an important part of keeping the peace. Many fighters are happy with the money for now even though it represents a pay cut from the amount they were receiving from the americans, 300 down from 350. keeping young men with weapons employed and on your side is a good idea. By keeping them employed and maintaining the peace it offers a chance for a reconciliation. This should not be portrayed as a quick and simple process.

If we analogize to the civil rights movement and race relations in the US feelings of racial hatred receded only over decades as younger people who never experienced jim crow grew up and interacted with African Americans. Even now after electing a black president the lingering effects of racial divide were painfully evident. Is it so unreasonable to expect that it will take similar lengths of time to sure up and heal the cleavages in iraqi society that have been based on tribal and sectarian fights centuries old?

The picture is still not very pretty. Violence on a terrible scale is common in iraq. To suggest that everything is better now that some of the sunni have been integrated into the army and police is not credible. However everything requires first steps and this is an important one. If the sunni are able to successfully integrate themselves into the security forces and al maliki refrains from a power consolidation move against them then Iraq will be in a far better position than it was a couple of months ago.

Read more...

News from Iraq on SOFA

Periodically is do a post on the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq that provides the legal framework for our presence and has been under negotiation for several months. Last week it looked like a deal had been done between Bush Co and al-Maliki that covered the central sticking point of Iraqi Legal jurisdiction over american soldiers. The deal had to go through several phases of approval before it could become law and one was the Political Council for National Security. Apparently it was a no go. McClatchy reporting,

Fearing political division in the parliament and in his country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won't sign the just-completed agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, a leading lawmaker said Friday.

It appears that the same sticking points that have been holding up the agreement all along went unsatisfied in the eyes of the Political Council. There are a number of political reasons for these failures including the Iraqi political classes unwillingness to associate with the americans before the upcoming elections next year. The politicians are trying to balance the appearance of working with the americans with being the tools of iran. This has lead to an impasse with the result that al-Maliki now has to go back to the UN to get the mandate renewed for the coming year or risk the US being unable to perform operations within the country.

Here is a 15 minute in depth expose on the situation from al-jazeera english.

Read more...

SOFA Still in the works

I have to give the Bush Administration credit. They are really working hard to get this Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) done before the new year. The reported major sticking point has been iraqi legal jurisdiction over american forces abroad. that may be on the verge of resolution,

Iraqi officials familiar with the draft say it allows American troops to be tried in Iraqi courts for major crimes committed off base and when not on missions. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information, say it also calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the end of June and withdraw from the country by Dec. 31, 2011, unless the Baghdad government asks them to stay.

this raises some interesting legal mechanics questions. The biggest i can see is that the Iraqi's will be able to demand extradition of soldiers from the US if they want to charge them for one of these crimes in Iraq. That may lead to a situation where a former marine or army soldier is discharged then charged by Iraqi's with a crime. He would have to be extradited from the US to Iraq to stand trial. That could be very ugly.

The second point to consider is the definition of "on mission". this will be one of the most interesting negotiations because a broad definition of on mission is likely to undercut the oversight clause. Once the language is revealed we will know whether this is a real agreement with major teeth for the Iraqi's or just a pr release designed to make it look like al-maliki won out over the united states.

It will also be an interesting procedural question as to how this is eneacted into law in iraq. When the issue of not making the deal in time first arose the deadline was july because any proposed deal had to go through the parliment and it appeared at the time that there was no chance of that happening should negotiations extend past july. Well, we are well past that point. Juan Cole had part of a post on this topic,

McClatchy is reporting that Iraqi vice president Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, is expressing severe doubts that any security agreement can be concluded by the end of the year. He tells Leila Fadel that even if its text were soon finalized, the agreement would have to be passed by the cabinet, by the national security council and by parliament in time to take effect January 1.

Hashimi is also worried about a return of large-scale violence at the end of the year. How the Shiite-dominated government treats the Awakening Councils or pro-American Sunni militias, which it is now assuming responsibility for, will help determine if the civil war returns.

The alternatives to concluding the agreement are few. Iraq could go back to the UN Security Council for a one-year extension of its mandate to the Multinational Forces in Iraq, giving US troops legal standing to perform security duties in a foreign country. Moreover, Russia may raise difficulties in the UNSC, in retaliation for Washington's siding with Georgia in the recent police action there.

Or the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, could sign an executive memorandum of agreement with George W. Bush in hopes that it would take on the force of law with time. Both steps have drawbacks. Iraqis are not eager to postpone their return to full sovereignty in international law for yet another year. And, an executive-branch memorandum of agreement could easily be challenged.

The nightmare scenario is that a US platoon gets in a firefight in a village and accidentally shoots up a house full of civilians, and are overwhelmed by Iraqi troops and police and dragged before the local qadi and summarily executed. Without a Status of Forces Agreement, it is not even clear that the Iraqi police and judge in such a situation would be brought up on charges; after all,they had just arrested and punished foreign "murderers" with no legal standing to be in Iraq in the first place.

As noted in the article the way to get this proposed agreement into law is not clear and every option has significant negatives. Stay tuned...

Read more...

In other news...SOFA still not done.

We still do not have deal with Iraq that would put in place a new status of forces agreement. Without this we have no legal justification for being in Iraq. Negotiations are ongoing but there seems to have been very little progress as al-Maliki is holding fast to the one demand that is holding up negotiations, jurisdiction over US troops.

The most important hanging issue here is the immunity or the legal jurisdiction over the American troops because certain powers, political powers inside Iraq are getting ready to use this issue once it's — if it's — approved, as a vehicle to overthrow, to destabilize the entire political system in Iraq, to destabilize the government. They would use it as a vehicle to re-ignite public feelings inside the country.

We have proposed that the legal jurisdiction would be on one hand, on one side, with the Americans ... when the troops are performing military operations. When they are not performing a military operation, they are outside their camps, the legal jurisdiction would be in the hands of the Iraqi judiciary.

Kevin Drum proposed giving this to the Iraqis with the definition of military operation being so broad an vague as to make it impossible for the US troops to actually end up in Iraqi courts. I think that is probably going to be getting to cute. The iraqi's are holding out for a reason and will clearly be able to tell if they substantively receive the provision they are asking for. Trying a legal trick like that might not work in a country that does not respect legal formalism in that manner. I dont know that Iraq is such a place but it might be and i dont think the bushies are willing to take that chance.

Also i suspect Bush may have tried this already. This is the type of thing they did with torture. Say we dont torture but define it in such a way that nothing is actually torture under the definition. Faced with this type of construction a court could simply hold to the intent of the law and hold the soldiers totally liable. It is more than possible.

Not to mention that al-maliki has the leverage. He wants the troops gone by 2010 but was willing to play bushs political game. However he understands that with the financial crisis we might want to be cutting back on the whole foriegn war thing. Via Juan Cole

Al-Maliki, who wants a timetable for US withdrawal by the end of 2010, ended the interview with a clever appeal over Bush's head to the American public:

' "If I had enough funds to assist the American economy, I would do all that I can. But unfortunately Iraq cannot solve America's economic problems.

"But what Iraq can do is take up more responsibility security-wise here inside Iraq. And I have told the Americans repeatedly that we are ready to take up responsibility here in Iraq so there are less losses, a decreased number of American lives lost, and I am prepared to present this case before the American people. ...'

Given the current conditions with the election and the financial markets i have a hard time seeing a deal completed. Never say never though...

Read more...

Iraq's revived air power.

The discussion over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq has been held up over a number of points. The biggest one is that Nuri al-Maliki wants to have the US troops subject to Iraqi jurisdiction. This is a total non-starter. Never going to happen. Why he continues to insist on this provision is causing some consternation among the negotiators, they feel he is over confident--

The Americans "contributed to creating this overconfidence," said an Iraqi official close to al-Maliki. "They kept telling him he can't do it, it's going to be a disaster, and you are going to have massive casualties and not achieve anything in Basra. It achieved things that a much longer British operation couldn't achieve." The official refused to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters about the issue.

Some of al-Maliki's public statements may amount to political posturing to his fractured political base in parliament, which needs to approve the final security agreement.

Al-Maliki realizes that his security forces still need help, and he's pressing the U.S. administration to accelerate arms sales and to bolster Iraq's fledgling air force.

"He is growing and may feel he's achieved a lot on security and on reconciliation and re-establishing the national unity government," an Iraqi official close to al-Maliki said. "He's taking credit for this security improvement. ... He believes he can afford to disagree with the Americans."

Privately, U.S. officials grumble that al-Maliki doesn't appreciate the training and support that the United States has provided, and some Iraqi officials also worry that the prime minister has let his recent successes overpower the reality in Iraq.

The reasons they feel he is overconfident are numerous. One of the biggest ones is that al-Maliki's success in Basra and other areas can be traced back to the help of the US air power. Air support is a key component in countering the militias and is something they have no answer for. the iraqi's understand this, which is why they are moving to reestablish their air force.

Grounded in 2003 when the U.S.-led invasion began, Iraq's once powerful air force is taking to the skies again. Iraqi planes and helicopters conduct aerial surveillance, ferry troops and supplies, and recently completed their first medical evacuation.

...Because of the technology involved, giving Iraq similar capabilities will be expensive -- "very expensive," said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Brooks Bash, who is responsible for advising the new force.

It will also take time. Although a soldier can be trained in four or five months, it takes three to five years to become an experienced pilot, and seven years to learn to maintain aircraft at the highest level. Air force personnel also need to be proficient in English, which is used by air traffic controllers around the world.

At just over 1,600 personnel and 70 aircraft, the current force is a ghost of its former self. Air force chief Lt. Gen. Kamal Barzanji said he used to be responsible for twice as many troops and aircraft when he was a base commander under Hussein.

U.S. and Iraqi officers have devised a plan to build a self-sufficient air force with 350 aircraft and 20,000 personnel by 2020, but doing so will require the Iraqi government to spend about $2 billion a year.

They are a long way off having a top flight air corp. The building of the force will take a great deal of time and money as the article points out. The iraq's seem eaer to get back into the skies in the role of a mid east air power having requested permission to purchase 36 f-16s from the United States. These planes are not designed to be anti-insurgent air craft but air superiority fighters.

Having the type of air force iraq is pushing for is designed to be a status symbol for the rest of the region. It would be a sign that Iraq is becoming a force to be reckoned with. In many ways though it might be a little early to start dreaming about air superiority. In a sign of just how far the Iraqi's have to go before their country returns to a semblance of normal life,

When the U.S. military began recruiting for a new air force, Abu Mohammed was among the first to sign up. Many other experienced pilots and technicians hesitated. Iraqi pilots are hunted down by Sunni Arab militants for cooperating with the U.S. and by Shiite militants for having participated in the war against Shiite Iran.

Abu Mohammed hides his profession from all but his closest relatives and asked to be identified by a traditional nickname.

If the air force becomes proficient in the type of air support missions required to battle insurgents in urban areas it will further embolden al-Maliki. This is not likely to happen soon with their aircraft not receiving hellfire missiles until next year. The air force is pushing hard for the air craft and i bet al-maliki ends up purchasing them. He wants the US gone and the sooner he can get his air force up to strength the more secure he will feel in his power.

Read more...

Is Iraq Headed Back to Full Blown Civil War?

With the success of ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, the Muqtada al-Sadr ceasefire, and the Sunni Awakening Councils Iraq has become less of a war zone than before. These developments though are precarious and the wrong actions could easily restart the civil war. It looks like Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki might be intent on doing just that. I think that it has become clear that the surge failed in its stated goal of bringing about political reconciliation. If the concerns coming out of Iraq come to fruition Iraq is about to return to Civil War.

One of the biggest reasons that AQI was smashed are the Sunni Arab Awakening Councils or "Sons of Iraq". The Sunni minority at this point has little to no say in the government after boycotting the last elections. The integration of the SOI into the state security forces is one of the biggest possible steps toward reconciliation. It appears like this integration is not progressing.

' Kahl said in the briefing that, of the 103,000 Sunnis belonging to those militias, the Iraqi government had promised to take into the security forces only about 16,000. But in fact, it has approved only 600 applicants thus far, according to Kahl, and most of those have turned out to be Shi’a rather than Sunni militiamen.'

Far from integrating these forces and neutralizing them by involving them in the system al-Maliki views them as a significant threat to be eradicated. al-Maliki believes he has secured his power position in Iraq as he now firmly controls the intelligence apparatus and has military operations centers under his authority throughout the country. Combined this with a confidence in his military as a result of the campaigns in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul a new political identity as a nationalist foe of the occupation and al-Maliki seems to think he does not need to integrate the Sunni. As Juan Cole notes,

I've also been told by knowledgeable Iraqi Shiites that the Awakening Councils are the biggest threat Baghdad faces and that when the Americans are weaker in Iraqi it will be necessary to "take care of them.

and noted in the IPS article

"There’s even some evidence that [al-Maliki] wants to start a fight with the Sons of Iraq," said Kahl. "Al-Maliki doesn’t believe he has to accommodate these people. He will only do it if we twist his arm to the breaking point."

al-Maliki has had to mutate to an opponent of the occupation as it has become less and less popular. He also sees that that the tide of public opinion in this country is against continuing in Iraq. With the potential of the Obama administration withdrawing troops al-maliki sees the writing on the wall and has apparently solidified his ties with Iran.

Kahl did not note, but I want to, that Iran is mainly allied with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and his Badr corps paramilitary, which has become the backbone of al-Maliki's security forces

All of this has put the SOFA into flux with Bush threatening to pull troops if one is not competed soon on favorable terms. Clearly the situation in Iraq is fragile and if al-Maliki decides that he would rather crush the Sunnis militarily than neutralize them politically then there might be a major upsurge in violence. Not that it is such a safe place now

BAGHDAD - Bombers struck Shiite pilgrims Saturday for a third consecutive day, killing six people in the latest in a series of attacks apparently aimed at stoking sectarian tension. The attacks have targeted pilgrims headed for the Shiite city of Karbala, where hundreds of thousands of people have gathered for festivities that culminate Sunday morning.

Read more...