While US media treated the Iraqi cabinet approval of the SOFA as a big win – and the wingnut blogs held a Victory in Iraq party day, the Iraqis once again reminded us that it is their country.
"It is not only the Iraqi parliament that has a role in overseeing this agreement, but the Iraqi people, who will have a referendum on July 30 so they can see if the agreement is correct or not, six months after it comes into effect," Iraq’s top negotiator Muwafaq al-Rubaie told Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.
Maliki has been forced to delay the parliamentary vote – first until today, then until tomorrow – as he tries to collect enough votes for passage. The Iraqi Accord Front, a major Sunni bloc, insisted on approval of several governmental reforms including the release of Sunnis detained by US forces but their major demand was for a popular referendum on SOFA to be held by July 31, a concession they apparently have won within the Iraqi Parliament.
Now the question is whether the US will agree to a democratic vote:
[Deputy parliamentary speaker] Khaled al-Attiya said on the eve of the vote that a referendum was out of the question because the Americans were sure to reject it.
Reports just coming in claim that Condi Rice has said "an Iraqi proposal to hold a national referendum next year on a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement does not necessarily mean the pact will be put off. "
Condi’s willingness to allow a popular vote on the progress of SOFA raises some interesting questions. Is the Bush administration so desperate to have almost any agreement so long as the SOFA is portrayed here as some form of victory or is there more going on here? As Bernard at Moon of Alabama reminds us, Mailiki and Crocker signed two agreements, not just the SOFA – and the second, a Strategic Forces Agreement, may be the more important as he notes in:"The Iraq SOFA Is A Shiny Object that is supposed to keep our eyes away from the problematic text of the SFA."
A briefing by Greg Bruno of the Council of Foreign Relations says of the secret SFA:
Details of the second accord under discussion are more opaque. Referred to as a "strategic framework agreement," the measure would broadly address issues not covered by the SOFA, including those outlined in a "declaration of principles" document signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November 2007. Among these issues: the U.S. role in defending Iraq from internal and external threats; U.S. support of political reconciliation; and U.S. efforts to confront terrorist groups.
Nationalist members of Parliament led by Moqtada al Sadr’s trend remain opposed to any agreement “because it gives an Iraqi stamp of approval to the U.S. military presence in Iraq.”
And even if the SOFA is passed, the actual content of the agreement text may be contentious, as AFP reports:
… the English version has not been made public, and US officials in Washington said there may be a public dispute between the two sides over the interpretation of certain parts of the agreement.
Once again, despite all the attempts of BushCo to declare some sort of victory, the reality on the ground may be very different.



59 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thanks, Siun.
Digg
Siun, you might want to check your headline: SFA = SOFA?
zedderoo II
Neuro Dugg your Digg!!
They are two different things:
SOFA – Status Of Forces Agreement
SFA – Strategic Force Agreement.
You can see a copy of the SOFA in Oxdown Diaries today from McClatchy News.
The SFA is still a big secret apparently.
OK thanks for the clarification
The link to the SOFA is in Laura’s story on Oxdown today.
link to that diary
Thanks Margot. I’m not quite up to speed on this linky thingy.
Yep – the SFA is different from the SOFA … confusing, eh?
I read that SOFA agreement. It really is no wonder Bush doesn’t want anyone to see it! My favorite section is the one that says that Iraq can ask us to leave sooner than 2011. In the same section it says that the US can leave sooner than 2011. Gives Obama freedom to do his 16-month pullout. Ha!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! The BushCo view of victory in Iraq and reality on the ground have always been different.
oh that’s no problem. If you just want to put the URL and not make a link, it’s fine. Copy the link and paste in the comment box like this
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2049
Until both the agreements are released and reviewed There is no way they can be determined to not be treaties. If He signs and it is then considered to be a treaty wouldn’t it be null and void?
There are also reports but very unconfirmed that there are secret additions to the SOFA – Maliki says that’s not true but no one can say for sure.
If the folks intent on blocking any agreement such as the Sadrists who make a very good point that these agreements legitimize the occupation – if they are unable to block the SOFA, a referendum is a good idea but depends on a fair vote.
Hi Siun!
From what you have heard, is the SFA an attempt by the Bushies to do an end run around some of the more ‘painful (for the US)’ parts of the SOFA?
Good question and one which seems to have vanished from the US landscape.
That’s the suspicion but no one can tell for sure. See Bernards – and the section from Badger he quotes – which may mean (and I stress may given the secrecy) that the SFA assigns police authority (or “security”) to Iraq control while the US keeps “defense”
OT, but I just wanted to highlight this: banner photograph headlines on major MSM nets focused on the India terror attack in progres (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS). Fox banner photograph headline: “Police arrest suspect in the kidnapping and killing of Reno coed Brianna Denison”.. um.
I think the argument about legitimizing the occupation is a good one, however given the ‘on the ground reality’, do you think it would be better to have the SOFA as a way of making sure the US actually is forced to leave?
One of the sections says that Iraq can ask us to leave sooner than 2011 and that we must do so.
Sounds like Condi gave away more than intended and the SFA is the core of this rotten apple. Be nice to know where Obama stands on the matter but I’m certain he won’t be any more forthcoming on the subject than Bushco.
Siun, has anyone at Gorillas Guides seen an Arabic copy of the SOFA? And if so, could they provide us with a translation to compare with the one McClatchy got?
Careful, nahant, ya don’t want to get neuro’s knickers in a knot, eh?
Aloha, Suin!
The McClatchy report highlights some of the Fuckery…
I thought it was odd that CNN and FOX were hours behind MSNBC “breaking news” coverage of the India terrorist attack, and MSNBC was using the CNN International feed for live pictures from the scene.
Via Juan Cole, the (Warning)PDF of a translation:
That’s interesting – since al-Sadr has this nice cease-fire in place. And that nice cease-fire is why Bushco is able to run around telling everyone that we have achieved victory.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you…
Siun,
Thanks for keeping us posted, and reminding us of the SFA behind the SOFA.
One thing I haven’t heard much talk about, however:
Will we, or when will we, allow Iraq to have an Air Force under Iraqi command?
Until we do, Iraq is still a colony, and we are still an occupying army.
Bob in HI
That all sounds like an invitation to disaster to me. Huge riots and out cry from Iraqis after US soldiers do any kind of large operation an innocents get killed in the process.
Guides got a copy in Farsi which is the version most folks in Iraq have been translating from – seems Maliki and friends made sure Iran had a copy but not the parliament or other Iraqis.
Those Iraqis haven’t experienced one of Bushes signing statements yet have they.
I also find it very interesting that no ‘exception’ in the handover of all buildings and facilities that are non-portable for the new embassy. In fact, as soon as the agreement is signed (?!?) the Iraqis assume full control of the Green Zone.
Hmmmm.
That’s a great quote and worth paying a lot of attention to!
He’s got that right. Iraqi assent to the accord legitimizes the American occupation of their country, past and future.
I’ve felt all along that al-Sadr is just sitting and waiting, biding his time, for the bulk of US soldiers to leave and then he is going to move in and take over the government. He seems to be the one that has the most popular support and folks that are willing to do whatever it takes for him.
According to the SOFA, the Iraqis will control the air space and while the US doesn’t have to pay landing fees and the like, the Iraqis are in charge.
I’m not a lawyer – but it seems to me that means the Iraqis can do what they want about having an Air Force.
Oh, my.
Oh, my.
Words fail me. This is too much.
This tells me more than what the words actually are.
Bob in HI
Al Sadr has gained immense popular support by remaining quite clear in his opposition to the occupation. A lot of the maneuvering around Provincial elections, etc are attempts to block control shifting to Sadrist trend candidates. Sadr himself is not attempting to replace Maliki and intends from what everyone can sort out to remain a religious leader instead – hence his continued studies.
We are in agreement on that. Since al-Sadr has the backing of al-Sistani, all of the different factions would probably be much more accepting of a government by him than this one. While al-Maliki has been doing a pretty credible job at standing up to the US as much as he can under the constraints he is operating under – he is still seen as a puppet of the US and that will never change. And that is why his government is seen as illegitimate and will fail at the first opportunity.
Once al-Sadr takes over you can bet the Constitution will be complete scrapped and a new one will be written that doesn’t have all the provisions allowing the US to interfere in practically every facet of their government.
“Controlling the air space” doesn’t mean squat unless you have (a) the aircraft, or (b) the anti-aircraft missiles to enforce it. Are we gonna let Iraq have either one under Iraqi control? My bet is “not”– at least, not until January 20.
Bob in HI
True, Ladybird from Roads to Iraq pointed this out…
The Sunni IAF is demanding agreement to rewrite the constitution in return for voting for SOFA btw.
I would not however say that al-Sadr “has the backing of al-Sistani” – there’s genuine discomfort between the established clerics and the Sadrist movement and Sadr himself. There’s a lot of history there.
Siun, an excellent point about him staying a religious leader. Is there anyone else that you or anyone in Iraq can see as a replacement of al-Sadr’s stature?
I have long felt that all of this delaying and procrastinating is designed for one purpose – to wait the US out – and once we are out – then all the previous agreements and interferences we have put in place will be overturned. That is why there is no oil law, no provincial elections, and this SOFA appears anyway to be mightly in favor of Iraqi sovereignty. The Iraqis have played the game well, and Bushco is so desperate to make it seem like he accomplished something that he has bent over backwards to get an agreement – ANY agreement.
One point that Bernard makes is that the leaked tidbits from the SFA seem to point to the US controlling arms procurements on behalf of Iraq.
Heh, and I only quoted a few of the worst, rest assured there’s more…! :-(
My bad – I just assumed (’nother bad) that since al-Sistani seems to have a great deal of influence over al-Sadr (at least demonstrated in a couple of cases) that the two of them were in at least some agreement.
I would be really interested in learning more about this relationship, either links or maybe another post? I know that’s asking a lot but I think that’s one of the problems in this country. We know absolutely nothing about the issues from the other person/country point of view. And since we don’t even have a grasp on our own history, we surely don’t understand the hostory anywhere else.
Our bad – all of us!
Which begs the question as to why the Kurds received 3 shipments of arms and ammo from Bulgaria…? MNF-I must’ve winked and nodded at that shipment…
I’m really not sure who would receive support to replace Maliki – how Iraq will sort out once the US is out is pretty murky and we in the US have no understanding of the various alliances forming for example between the Association of Muslim Scholars and the Sadrist trend but I hear those alliances are strong and growing. Outside the view of US sources, a lot is going on – and it’s important to note that those alliances and negotiations are not bound by our concepts of a Sunni v Shia mindset.
Well, if that isn’t infringement on Iraqi sovereignty, I don’t know what is. We are busy selling arms to anyone else with the cash – including all the countries that surround Iraq – and they are supposed to rely on US to decide if they get any? Give me a break.
A good place to start – with the caveat that Cockburn has some personal issues with al Sadr – is this article: Riding the Tiger by Patrick Cockburn as well as his book on Moqtada which is very helpful.
I am not surprised that the Sunni-Shia ‘divide’ is not anywhere as wide or as deep as we have portrayed it. The big lie perpretated on behalf of Bushco is that these factions would as soon kill each other as look at each other is a complete fiction. I have know that for a long time.
I also think that for the time being anyhow, the Iraqis allow this deception/misinformation to remain kind of out there to cover for what is really going on. Thanks for confirming that.
Siun,
I appreciate your understanding of the Iraqi situation on the ground.
Maliki is in a rough spot. How can he survive as a leader of influence without the U.S. propping him up?
The main question seems to be whether Maliki’s Iraqi army can grow and mature fast enough to control al-Sadr’s militia without U.S. air support?
I remain skeptical about the viability of U.S. forces sitting on selected bulls eye’s around the country. Yes, I know, someone explained to me how with modern military technology, bulls eye’s can be a safe place to live, but hey, even the Green Zone gets an occasional mortar, and the Baghdad Airport is still not safe for normal commercial travel, last I heard.
Bush is just trying to push off the awkward departure scenes into the Obama administration, so that he (Obama) can be blamed for what happens.
Bob in HI
yep – wouldn’t it be great if we had genuine info on what was and was not being agreed to … ha
BTW, Digg is open, just not updating on the page.
I see al-Sadr setting up an Iranian sort of government where he is the supreme religious leader of Iraq, but still having a president and various other ministers to administer the government and provide services to the people. I don’t see him taking a day to day role like Malaki, but being the overseer of the whole operation.
That is a good model indeed. I just read the Cockburn article that Siun linked to – and that sounds (from that short excerpt) like a situation that al-Sadr could function very well in.
The misconception that permeates our western views is the fact that Sunnis/Shiites are rigidly set in stone… We fail to realize that they are similar to the Protestant/Catholic schism in Christianity… If one is born into a Sunni family doesn’t guarantee that they will remain a Sunni later on… And vice versa, with many marrying one another too…
Precisely, and many families are mixed.
New post
Lokywoky,
For starters, see the Wikipedia entries on Muqtada al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Then, if you have time, look at the resources cited by Siun @48. And maybe throw in this piece from Juan Cole’s archives:
Competing to Lead Iraq’s Shi‘a: A Guide, Part 1. I don’t know if “Part 2″ ever came out. [Siun, is this piece by Cole now out of date?]
To be too brief, al-Sistani is The Teacher, and al-Sadr is The General. The later has the muscle, but not the legitimate authority; the former has the legitimate authority, but not much independent muscle. They need each other.
Siun, have I got that right?
Bob in HI
Thanks bob, I’ll check those out.