A First
The long-term strategic agreement with Iraq would be an alarming one, according to this article that offers a critical look at i’s that must be dotted, t’s that must be crossed, but fails to note how alarming the lack of an agreement might be. Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq’s security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.
After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.
By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by “outlaw groups.” But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.
Globe scribbler Charlie Savage presents a number of alarmed congressmen and legal experts, but he apparently failed to find anyone who might point out that this is the most aggressively short-sighted and isolationist Congress to occupy the Capitol since Dec. 6, 1941 … OK, maybe since 1972 … and in Iraq it has shown every sign that given the chance, it would not only throw out the baby and the bathwater, but would like to disconnect the tub and give that the heave-ho, too.
“We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress,” General Douglas Lute, Bush’s deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, said in November when the White House announced the plan.
Lute’s disclosure initially attracted little scrutiny. Most of the attention has instead focused on whether the pact could make it more difficult for the United States to withdraw from Iraq after Bush leaves office. Although the next president could scrap the agreement, reneging on the compact would create diplomatic problems by showing that the nation does not live up to its obligations, specialists say.
Not clear why that’s a problem. I thought the plan was to undiplomatically abandon Iraq to the tender mercies of al-Qaeda and Iran, and watch from Okinawa while the Iraqis kill each other. Maybe it’s more embarrassing when you’re forced to abandon an agreement than when you just run screaming from a moral imperative and vital national security interest.
On that troublesome issue of whether its legal or not, it turns out no one actually knows. Because nothing has been formally agreed to.
Bush and Maliki have said they intend to complete the agreement by July 31. The two countries need to reach some kind of an agreement this year in order to create a legal framework for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq after Dec. 31, when a United Nations Security Counsel mandate is due to expire.
But the “long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship” outlined in November goes far beyond an ordinary status-of-forces agreement. It would include promises of debt forgiveness, economic and technical aid, facilitating “especially American investments” in Iraq - and the security commitments, according to Bush and Maliki’s joint declaration last November.
Facing mounting criticism over its assertion that Bush can reach such an agreement on his own, the administration has sent mixed signals about whether it intends to follow through on the plan. The New York Times today reported that administration officials told a reporter that the final pact may not have security guarantees after all, but the article did not identify its sources.
Anyone else glad we didn’t fight the Cold War this way? They’d be speaking Russian in Holland. I’d advise Saudis to bone up on their Persian. But maybe it will all be fine and legal.
Lute may have offered a clue to the administration’s legal arguments during the November press conference when he noted that “We have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the US and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.”
Globe’s experts differ. The other thing missing from this article is what the Democratic leadership in Congress and Democratic presidential candidates intend to do to protect vital U.S. interests in the Middle East. At last check, I believe they intended to ask Iran to do that for them.
Topics: Iran, Iraq, al qaeda, media, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:00 am on Friday, January 25, 2008
6 Responses to “A First”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
[...] Jules Crittenden: “the most aggressively short-sighted and isolationist Congress to occupy the Capitol since Dec. 6, 1941.” [...]
January 25th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Web Reconnaissance for 01/25/2008
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
It’s important to cross t’s, but seriously, how important is it to dot an i? Just ’sayin’
January 25th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
“WASHINGTON - President Bush’s plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq’s security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.”
Never heard of Kosovo and Slick Willie’s one man de facto defensive alliance with the Albanian jihadists, eh?
I’m so surprised.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In point of fact a defensive agreement between the POTUS and a foreign government carries no legal weight. However, thanks to the War Powers Act the President of the United States can initiate military operations against anyone he pleases (defensive agreement or no defensive agreement) as Slick proved when he started bombing the FRY without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress (same deal with that insane maniac Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis fiasco).
Not that I would expect one journalist in a thousand to know that or to understand the implications.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
As I remember such an agreement is only binding for the term of the president who made it via executive order. So if a Democrat is elected and they want to abandon Iraq anyway, why not just void a presidential agreement. I mean, what could that do but signal again that the US does not live up to its agreements. It might be interesting to watch the Democrats squirm over that dilemma.
The world doesn’t understand the intricacies of our governance, but they do know when you have abandoned someone you promised to defend. Sort of like South Vietnam in 1975. We all know how that worked out in our enemies’ perceptions of our country’s bent on engaging in foreign entanglements. Iraqi has not dispelled that perception about our country and we will be tested again when Mr. Bush leaves office to see what our new leaders are made of.