One of the most significant foreign policy questions to be decided in the next several months is that of continuing U.S. involvement in Iraq. In large part, that question will be answered by the way the current Status of Forces Agreement ("SOFA") negotiations unfold in Baghdad between the U.S. government and the Iraqi government. Currently, U.S. and Multi-National Forces in Iraq operate under a United Nations mandate, but that mandate is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
For many months, diplomats, lawyers, military officers and political leaders have been wrestling over what legal framework will succeed the UN mandate -- and according to recent reports, those negotiations haven't been going very well.
Over at Abu Muquwama, "Dr. iRack" has followed this issue closely. In a series of blog posts, he's got some of the best analysis anywhere on the SOFA issue and the larger questions these talks raise about the future of the U.S. effort in Iraq. Check it out. http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/search/label/SOFA By Phillip Carter | June 17, 2008
.. few or the comments
Dr. iRack makes an excellent point -- the Bush administration sees Maliki as indispensable to the war effort. This gives Maliki tremendous leverage in negotiations.
Bush and Negroponte made exactly the same mistake in Pakistan: rather than seeing the Pakistani *people* as vital to the war on terror, they saw *Musharaff" as vital. In doing so, they alienated the Pakistani's oppressed by Musharaff, and when the government changed, we had a lot of 'splaining to do.
So.. when, and it seems likely soon, Maliki is out, what will be the US influence and position with the new Government of Iraq?
The SOFA as drafted seems offensive to any sovereign state: immunity for private security contactors? Unlimited powers to arrest and detain Iraqis? Who but a total puppet could agree to such things?
Once again, the Bush administration goes it alone, by not attempting to negotiate a bilateral treaty with Iraq, confirmed by the Senate.
Is this just hubris? Is it because they despise Congress? Is it because they don't think they have the necessary votes? If senators believed that such a treaty was in the best interests of the United States, they'd vote for it, wouldn't they? Posted by: DanPatrick | June 17, 2008 ........................................
I realize that it may be difficult to come up with a short, non-emotive word that conveys the reality of the proposals the Bush administration is pushing on the Iraqi government, but that's no excuse for accepting the administration's misleading characterization of a SOFA, or status of forces agreement.
Not one of the many, many existing SOFAs with governments where the U.S. has bases resembles even slightly the Bush proposals: fifty-plus bases, unilateral military action, detention of host country nationals, military action against other countries, total immunity of U.S. troops and private contractors from laws of the host country, the fiction that bases are "Iraqi bases" if there is a single Iraqi guard on the perimeter...
This is a proposal for indefinite military occupation. It is not a status of forces agreement.
Another important reason not to cooperate with the administration's misleading description is that SOFAs can be and usually are negotiated by the executive branch with the host government, without the need for Senate ratification. But this proposal has the character of a treaty, and would require Senate ratification to become binding. The administration is trying to get the deal done without Congressional approval by calling it a SOFA.
There is no reason to go along. Posted by: Nell2 | June 17, 2008 ......................................
There has never been a SOFA in a country where the U.S. was at war--even though allied--or was occupying.
Inasmuch as Vietnam seems to be the nearest historical reference, revisiting the terms there might be helpful. We operated under a so-called "Pentalateral Agreement," which essentially guaranteed full diplomatic immunity to senior officers, limited diplomatic, but full immunity from Vietnamese court jurisdiction for all other officers, and treatment similar to that enjoyed by U.S. diplomatic clerical personnel to enlisted personnel. Functionally, the Vietnamese exercised no legal authority over U.S. forces. All offenses--military and civilian--were handled through courts-martial.
U.S. civilian employees were treated in a similar fashion to the military. Contractors--and there were actually a lot of them in Vietnam--were officially subject to Vietnamese law, but it seems the Vietnamese never chose to exercise this authority, if it was ever needed at all.
Going back to WW2, even though as many as one million U.S. military personnel were stationed in England, English courts had no jurisdiction over those forces. All offenses were handled by courts martial.
SOFA is designed for Cold War situations, e.g., West Germany, Korea, etc., where the once occupied nation or allied nation where the hot war took place becomes a consenting partner to the continuing presence of troops once hostilities have ceased. ISTM that one enormously pertinent factor is whether or not U.S. personnel are subject to hostile fire. IMO, if they are, and are therefore carrying weapons on a daily basis, a SOFA is inappropriate.
Personally, I think a SOFA granting any type of jurisdiction to Iraqi courts over U.S. personnel would be the death knell to the fantasies regarding the wonderful things a continued troop presence will bring. Speaking as a retired military officer, and knowing what I know about the so-called judicial system in Iraq, if someone told me I had to go to Iraq and then be subject to its so-called justice system, I would refuse to go. Just as I would have refused to go to Vietnam if the Vietnamese legal system had any jurisdiction over me.
You want a revolt among our forces? Grant the Iraqis jurisdiction over them. You want to eliminate contractors from the mix? Grant the Iraqis jurisdiction. Then watch the whole thing fall apart.
What we have here is yet another brain fart from the brilliant Bush Administration. What they're trying to do is tie the hands of the next administration, but if they're not careful, they will kill the golden goose. This whole SOFA issue should have never been broached at this time, unless, of course, it's really all just a clever ploy on the part of George Bush to end our involvement in Iraq sooner rather than later. Posted by: Publius | June 17, 2008..
this one for difference ..
Publius,
Stop peeing in the punch bowl with logic and reasoning. A SOFA, good or bad, is one of those benchmarks we need so we can move onto the next phase. I actually do believe your last statement, I do think it is a move by the POTUS to break contact under his terms. He must be concerned with his legacy. I fully believe that before the Nov elections, he will announce a large withdrawal plan. And the SOFA is a critical piece of the puzzle to reach the point that you brought up, a "post-war" period.
Have you heard that OIF has officially been divided into campaigns? Add these streamers to your guidon.
Liberation of Iraq - March 19, 2003 to May 1, 2003. Transition of Iraq - May 2, 2003 to June 28, 2004. Iraqi Governance - June 29, 2004 to Dec. 15, 2005. National Resolution - Dec. 16, 2005 to a date to be determined
I have no doubt in my mind that the POTUS intends to move into the next (and hopefully final) phase NLT 1 Jan 09. I am sure, as politics dictates, the announcement will be made at such a time that it will best support the Republican candidate. Posted by: bg | June 17, 2008 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/an_awful_sofa.html //////////////////////////////////////// .. this one just for it's whitewash qualities
State Department officials also would not reveal details of the negotiations so far, but have pledged to make the agreement public once the two sides have decided on a final draft. http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=55709
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
