[The more that Bush is "confident" in something happening, the more safe is the bet that precisely the opposite will happen. Per usual, the neocon-controlled mainstream media have been working hard to conceal what is really happening in Iraq from the American people.]
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The collapse of SOFA via Daily Kos by smintheus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 6/15/08 The dirty secret about the Bush administration negotiations with Nouri al Maliki's government for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is that they hinge upon secrecy. Begun in earnest in March, all the details have been kept secret from the US Congress, the Iraqi Parliament, and the public in both countries. In fact Bush announced last year that he would not permit Congress to ratify what would be a (major) defense treaty. The American public has no enthusiasm and Iraqis across the board are deeply hostile to almost everything about SOFA. Virtually every Iraqi politician of note is suspicious if not dismissive. Even dead-enders in the WH have been defensive in the extreme. Vague and negative details was all they'd give, none of them very credible: That SOFA would be "nonbinding", would not be a treaty, would not establish permanent bases, would not limit what the next president can do, etc. It was clear already last year that they realized there'd be no agreement, and hence no opportunity to lock in the next president to Bush's Iraq policies, without resort to the utmost secrecy. The US media was happy to lend a hand. In Iraq and Iran, SOFA has been the hottest of issues all year. But until May 30th, it barely registered in American news. Take for example the leak of a draft of SOFA in early April to The Guardian. A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country... Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. You'd have thought the leak of a "secret" and "sensitive" document would be newsworthy. Most Americans heard nothing about it. At best, they got a potted version of Bush administration officials' vague comments made – characteristically – behind closed doors. And so it went in the US media: silence, indifference, with a dash of perverse misinterpretation. Consider Michael Hirsh's laughably naive commentary that imagined Bush had already succeeded in nailing down SOFA, to the chagrin of Democrats. The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton... But Bush may have the upper hand now. The president touted the surge's success on Saturday, and he reiterated that "long-term success will require active U.S. engagement that outlasts my presidency." The "enduring relationship" he is building with Iraq, Bush added, "will have diplomatic, economic and security components—similar to relationships we have with Kuwait and other nations in this region and around the world."... Far away in the Persian Gulf, Bush is creating facts on the ground that the next president may not be able to ignore. The blinkers came off only when Moqtada al Sadr called for nationwide marches against SOFA on May 30th. Suddenly the US news media was rushing to catch up with a foreign policy fiasco that had nearly reached fruition. Turned out, upon examination, that the Bush administration was not in fact "close to reaching an agreement with the Iraqi government over its long term military role in the country", as it claimed, because the Iraqi people had never agreed to be pushed around in that fashion. The US news media, always the last to smell out dirty secrets in Iraq. How obvious was it that the Bush administration was desperately aware that everything depended on smoke and mirrors? Ponder this bit of slapstick in the wake of Sadr's first marches against SOFA (h/t Compound F). "The reasons for the peaceful demonstration were not made obvious," the U.S. military said in a statement. "Their ability to hold peaceful gatherings such as this demonstrates the improvements in security _ where people now feel safe enough to gather and let their voices be heard." Funny, these were the only observers in the Middle East who found themselves unable to figure out what Sadr meant by these marches. Two days ago Sadr called on supporters to rally against an agreement currently under discussion that could allow the U.S. to build permanent bases in Iraq and grant American citizens in Iraq immunity from prosecution...The protestors carried signs that called the long-term agreement "worse than the occupation itself" and a "war declaration against the Iraqi people." It couldn't be clearer that the US was desperate to deny that opposition to SOFA exists. To admit it would have shattered the carefully cultivated illusion of near consensus. Apart from some Sunnis who see a continued American troop presence as a bulwark against their Shiite foes, however, there was never any political support in Iraq for SOFA. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani came out firmly against the treaty. A source close to the [Shi'i] religious figure Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has said that Al-Sistani told Prime Minister Al-Maliki, during their meeting in the holy city of Al-Najaf, that he totally rejects the agreement. He [Al-Sistani] said he would not allow the signing of the agreement as long as he is alive. By late May, even Maliki's closest allies were speaking out bluntly Some senior Iraqi political leaders said they had serious concerns over the central issues under negotiation, including what sort of military operations and arrests of Iraqis the American troops could carry out without Iraq’s permission, legal immunities sought for American troops and security contractors and what the Iraqi officials characterized as demands for a long-term American military presence... Officials from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, an important Maliki ally, said several parts of the proposal violated Iraq’s sovereignty. Other lawmakers said negotiations should not resume until after the expiration of the United Nations resolution on United States troops. Otherwise, they said, Iraq would be in too weak a position to negotiate effectively. “The negotiations now are not equal, and the results will be more for the benefit of America,” said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker. “To have a long-term agreement with the Bush administration, which has five months to go, is wrong,” he added. “The Iraqi government should wait for the new American administration and then have an agreement with it.” By late May if not earlier, SOFA was effectively dead, at least in the guise presented by Bush (though the administration claimed it was "full steam ahead"). Iraqis view Bush as a lame duck; they understand as well as Americans that he is attempting to tie the hands of the next administration, and the Iraqi Parliament probably will slow walk any proposal until after he's gone. In other words, they'll put their foot down where Congress so far has only blustered. “This agreement is between Iraq and the United States president, and the American policy is not clear,” said Ali Adeeb, a senior member of the Shiite Dawa Party and a close ally of Mr. Maliki’s. “We can wait until the American elections to deal with a Democratic or Republican president.” Maliki's Iranian allies had of course been outraged all along by the negotiations (h/t Yoshie). He was finally caught in a bind between his Iranian and American allies that would be nearly impossible to finesse (as so often before). It was pretty likely he'd have to choose one or the other. It also seemed likely he'd side against Bush, who is on his way out the door. And that appears to be the way it is happening. Maliki won't announce a break; he'll be evasive and just let it transpire, slowly. The first week of June brought clear signs that SOFA was grinding to a halt. The current draft was leaked to The Independent, and immediately the Iraqi government announced it was strongly dissatisfied with major proposals and might request an extension for the negotiations. Important political players in Iraq came out strongly against SOFA. And Iran stepped up its pressure on Maliki too. "Iran is accusing America, and America is accusing Iran," said Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Kurdish politician in Iraq. "Nobody would want to be in Maliki's shoes right now." By this stage, things had gotten so dire that Bush administration figures began to admit publicly that SOFA might not be a fully done deal, quite. The Bush administration is conceding for the first time that the United States may not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before President Bush leaves office. Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. By June 10, the mood in Iraq was increasingly acrimonious, the likelihood of reaching an agreement before the UN mandate expires was seen as increasingly doubtful. Maliki finally realized that he was obliged to join the nearly unanimous opposition to SOFA, and last Friday he did so while talking to reporters in Jordan. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Friday that negotiations with the United States on a long-term security pact were deadlocked because of concern the deal infringes Iraqi sovereignty. "We have reached an impasse, because when we opened these negotiations we did not realise that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept," he told Jordanian newspaper editors, according to a journalist present at the meeting. As the last paragraph indicates, opposition in Iraq had reached such a peak that Maliki wanted to distance himself from the very process of negotiation. He had entered talks in good faith, he implied, whereas the Bush administration had overreached in totally unpredictable ways. True, though Maliki described the talks as deadlocked he added, "These negotiations will continue until we find common ground that is acceptable for the Iraqi side and the other party." But talks are just talks. Where will they lead? Nowhere, because Maliki has vowed that the Iraqi parliament will decide whether to ratify any agreement that should be reached. Parliamentary elections looming later this year, in which nearly every party is trying to portray itself as more opposed to the American presence than any of its rivals. There's no chance then that the Iraqi parliament will ratify anything remotely like the agreement that Bush has been seeking. Much more likely, it will kick the can down the road until a new president is inaugurated. On the supposition that finetuning the provisions that Iraqis find obnoxious to their sovereignty will bring them or their government around, Bush remains optimistic about the outcome. President Bush said Saturday he is confident the United States can reach a long-term security agreement with Iraq, one that will not establish permanent U.S. bases there. "If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis," Bush told a news conference in Paris. Bush has been wrong about virtually everything having to do with Iraq. He overplayed his hand one too many times, and SOFA is done for. Things you can do from here: - Subscribe to Daily Kos using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
