Log In | Register
Just when it looked like things were improving in Iraq, a setback. On Friday, in the strongest language he has used on the subject, President al-Maliki said that negotiations with the United States to forge a new security agreement were at an impasse.
The security pact is required because the United Nations mandate authorizing American involvement in Iraq will lapse at the end of this year, and without an agreement with the Iraqi government, American forces have no authority to be in Iraq. The points of argument are formidable indeed, but one would hope that he principal points can be negotiated.
--Al-Maliki rejects the American desire to have a free hand in conducting military operations in Iraq without first asking the permission of the Iraqi government. This seems to make sense, of course, but it is most likely just a bargaining position, since it would be impossible to effect the level of coordination al-Maliki is requesting and still conduct the operations the Iraqi government itself wants from the U.S. There are certain areas the Iraqis wish were closed to American operations, those that harbor the militias that are arms of the multifarious religious factions, but the Iraqi government is likely to agree that only specific locations that are not significant to security will be off-limits.
--The Iraqis also insist that American forces cannot be permitted to arrest and hold Iraqis who are captured during operations, and one would expect that some compromise is possible here, too. I have spent plenty of time in combat and can report that, in the kind of environment that exists in Iraq, most of the people detained really are combatants. But not all of them are, and they need to be processed before it can be determined what intelligence value they have. The most likely compromise, and one which is already being used in many areas, is Iraqi assistance in the field to determine the threat detainees may pose.
--The third disagreement is the status of American forces generally. Al-Maliki says he wants Americans in Iraq to be subject to Iraqi law. One must merely recall the incidents in which Iraqi citizens have been killed, evidently without discrimination, by Americans working for contract security firms. This is, of course, reprehensible behavior. But contractors are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and currently not subject to Iraqi law either, and this situation can not continue. The status of Americans in uniform, however, is different. In most other countries in which we have troops, we have executed a status of forces agreement that details the procedures for handling alleged crimes by American troops. As long as Central Command is vigorous about enforcing the UCMJ, the Iraqis are likely to agree that the current arrangement can continue.
But none of these fine points matter if, under pressure from the factions of which the Iraqi government is composed, the governmental coalition becomes intransigent and a complete agreement is not negotiated in the next few months. Although it is very unlikely, if there is a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq for any reason, it is liable to leave quite a mess behind.
But look on the bright side: we will then have enough troops to send to Afghanistan, which is the real front line of the war on terror.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
Thanks. As much as an extremist as I am---and as we all tend to be on some subjects, especially as we get older---I find it useful to cut to basics, something we all learned as brand new soldiers.
