The US-Iraq Deal Doesn't Bode Well

Secular and nationalist opponents of the Baghdad regime of Nouri al-Maliki failed, and spectacularly so, to block the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), and their failure is not a surprise. The ruling alliance of Shiite religious parties and Kurds, who moved forward with the tacit support of Iran, steamrollered opposition to the accord, which passed with at least 144 votes out of 198 members of parliament in attendance.

"A huge number of members left the country, supposedly on hajj [to Mecca] or for other reasons," said a leading Iraqi insider.

But, although the vote is a victory for Maliki, it says little about the future stability and security of the Iraqi state. And it says even less about the future of US-Iraq relations.

One important aspect of the back-and-forth among competing political blocs in advance of the vote is that Maliki felt compelled to make promises to the opposition about steps toward dealing with the many unresolved issues that threaten to explode Iraq in 2009.

A sharp-eyed analysis comes from Reidar Visser, research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and member of the Gulf Research Unit at the University of Oslo, who writes:

"Among the key demands [of the opposition] was a pledge by the government to work to reform the constitution and the political system of the country more generally, as well as committing to revisit the laws relating to the general amnesty law and the treatment of former Baathists and to work for the reintegration of the Awakening councils (al-sahwat) in the Iraqi security forces."

Still, though Maliki made concessions to the opposition to win their support (or at least their abstention) in the SOFA vote, in my opinion the Iraqi prime minister has no intention of fulfilling those promises. He continues to build his own power, strengthening his control over the Iraqi armed forces, and organizing paramilitary tribal councils in province after province that look like private, pro-Maliki militias. It bodes ill for the future. Adds Visser:

"Based on his past actions, it seems doubtful that Maliki realises the need to also abolish the system of sectarian domination through ethno-sectarian quotas, and without this kind of profound overhaul of the Iraqi system, an American withdrawal in the context of a Maliki government could mean a turn to greater authoritarianism or even covert or tacit Iranian support."

A highly placed Iraqi source told me that Maliki and Iran worked closely together, with the support of the Iranian-backed Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), to pass the SOFA:

"Everybody knows the game. Maliki spent months saying, 'No, no, no' to the SOFA, and then all of a sudden he said 'Yes.' He did that when Iran gave him the green light."

But the Iraqi source said that Maliki is also engaged in a deadly behind-the-scenes fight with ISCI for preeminence in the upcoming provincial elections (January 2009) and then the national parliamentary elections (December 2009), adding that Maliki is using his power as prime minister to build up the smallish Dawa party that he leads:

"Maliki is building up his tribal councils in order to support Dawa. He's putting his people in place everywhere. He's fired all of the inspector generals that checked his power in the ministries, replacing them with loyalists. He's cleaned up the oil ministry, and put his people in there. And he's lining up support among the generals."

So the underlying conflicts are unresolved. The Kurdish power grab in the north, around Kirkuk, and in border regions next to Kurdistan is careening towards a showdown that is likely to turn violent in 2009. The intra-Shiite tensions -- Dawa vs. ISCI vs. Muqtada al-Sadr's movement -- are also likely to get ugly. And the biggest problem of all is the power of the 100,000-strong Sunni Awakening movement. Despite Maliki's supposed concessions, he's not budging on bringing the Awakening and its allies into a power-sharing arrangement. That's a formula for renewed civil war, with Iran backing Maliki and Saudi Arabia and other Arab states backing the Sunnis and their allied tribes.

For Barack Obama, the pact need not tie his hands. He can withdraw US troops faster the pact calls for. By the same token, he can withdraw them more slowly than his promised 16-month timetable for evacuating all fifteen US combat brigades. Undoubtedly, Obama will get advice from the military, from Centcom commander David Petraeus, and from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (Obama's choice for the Pentagon) to slow the pace of withdrawal. They will also advise him to negotiate a post-2011 continuing US military presence in Iraq, despite the pact's deadline for a complete US withdrawal by then. It's all up for grabs.

What Maliki wants is for the United States to continue to build up his armed forces while allowing him free rein to consolidate political power at the expense of the nationalist and secular opposition. That's what Iran wants, too. It might be tempting for Obama to go along, but if he does, Iraq may explode. Of course, Iraq may explode whatever Obama does. But as he pulls US forces out, he'd better work hard to get Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other world and regional powers to help underwrite true reconciliation in Iraq. It's his only chance to avoid renewed civil war in Iraq.

Comments (8)

1. I think al-Maliki wants us in until he can fully consolidate power for his faction...and if we leave before that, he'll go to Ahmadinejad and the mullahs and cut a deal with them.

   The American public isn't going to put up with anymore more than 2011 and Obama knows it.

   So unless al-Maliki cracks down and becomes "slightly less" democratic (esp. towards the Sunnis and Kurds) within our withdrawal timetable, and probably even if he doesn't....we're likely to see what would have been the result if McCain won...or even if Dubya had had a third term...

   a Shiite Islamic Iraqi republic friendly to Iran.

   Thanks neo-cons.

   Posted by Mask at 11/27/2008 @ 4:35pm

2. Bingo mask...

   What could his intentions be otherwise...?? To make Iraq more stable and to bring " Democracy (LOL)" to a freedom starved people..?? Laugh OUT LOUD...

   And my crystal ball says, when (and not if) the shite hits the fan in Iraq, FOX and the lobotomized right wing, will blame the Dems and Obama for really screwing up Iraq...LOL...

   Iraq is an African Killer bee's nest waiting for someone with a stick to come along (again) and really set it off....

   THANKS, YOU MINDLESS NEOCONS.....

   Posted by Vvf1969 at 11/27/2008 @ 10:46pm

3. *Yeah liberals are so caring. Especially caring note from someone who is supposed to be serving G-d and Country.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/27/2008 @ 11:25pm*

   Wait...so now the Iraq War was an act of COMPASSION? I'm just going to let that sink in for a moment coming from a man who professes to spread the word of the Prince of Peace. But a fascinating rationalization for destroying almost all of Iraq's infrastructure and displacing millions of Iraqi citizens not to mention the tens of thousands of lives lost. That's how much you care about the ragheads LVL.

   Posted by yutsano at 11/27/2008 @ 11:58pm

4. "Evidently more than you. Or perhaps you thought it was ok for Saddam and his sons to murder, torture, rape, and commit every manner of horrors against the Iraqi people."

   It worked for you from the mid 1970's until 1991, then did you favor sanctions or were you for lifting them?

   I thought you might be interested in this Larry...

   [ Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1 Thursday, November 27, 2008 Document Type: OSC Translated Text

   According to Resolution 1770 of the Security Council, the military presence of American troops was coming to an end by the end of the current Christian year.]

   Interesting phrase there, don't you think?

   54% of the Iraqi "parliament" voted for the agreement. A slim majority for such an important document.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/28/2008 @ 08:51am

5. A reminder from 1984, Reagans State Dept

   "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

   ....Or perhaps you thought it was ok for Saddam and his sons to murder, torture, rape, and commit every manner of horrors against the Iraqi people.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/28/2008 @ 08:54am

6. By Wisam Mohammed

   BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber killed 12 people in an Iraqi mosque on Friday while thousands of followers of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated in Baghdad after parliament passed a pact allowing U.S. troops to remain through 2011.

   Some 9,000 people protested in Baghdad's Shi'ite slum of Sadr City after Friday prayers, burning a U.S. flag and holding banners reading "No, no to the agreement." About 2,500 people held a similar rally in the southern city of Basra.

   "I express my condolences to the Iraqi people on this grave occasion, in which they are harmed by the ... pact of shame and degradation," Sadr, whose militia has fought U.S. troops many times, said in a statement read to followers on his behalf.

   Sadr instructed his followers to wear black to mourn the passage of the deal, under which U.S. troops will withdraw from Iraqi towns and cities by mid-2009, and leave the country by the end of 2011.

   Earlier on Friday, a suicide bomber wearing an explosives-packed vest killed 12 people and wounded 17 others inside a Shi'ite mosque visited mainly by Sadr supporters 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

   The U.S. military said the bomber killed eight people and wounded 15 others as they queued outside the mosque to enter for Friday prayers.

   Reuters - 11/28/08 - 'Thousands of Iraqis protest U.S. security pact'

   Posted by OneVote at 11/28/2008 @ 10:49am

7. Iraq Referendum Deal Won't Effect Pact Any Time Soon Posted November 27, 2008

   A deal yesterday to schedule a referendum for July 30, 2009 on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) may have been instrumental in scoring the vote a narrow victory today in Iraq's Parliament, but the terms of the deal are unlikely to give the referendum the meaning that its Sunni advocates were hoping for.

   Not scheduled until seven months after the SOFA is already in effect, the referendum would at best order the Iraqi government to cancel the deal. The SOFA terms do seem to allow that, however they also require 12 months advance notice, making August of 2010 the absolute soonest the Iraqi government could cancel the deal passed today, even if the public roundly reject it in the referendum.

   Of course, the White House has kept the English language version of the SOFA a carefully guarded secret, refusing to provide even Congress with a copy, and reportedly has its own very loose interpretation of the pact, so exactly what mechanism the cancellation of the SOFA might take isn't entirely clear.

   http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/27/ iraq-referendum-deal-wont-effect-pact-any-time-soon/

   Posted by OneVote at 11/28/2008 @ 10:59am

8. lvliberty has no room to lecture even if he could establish record of his opposition to past (pre-Kuwait invasion)American alliance with Saddam.

   The Iraqis themselves have polled since 2004 as desirous of promt US troop exit. And have expressed the belief that the US occupation was only adding to, not subtracting from, short and longterm instability of Iraq.

   The blast in the Shia mosque today bolsters the fact that the surge has failed and that the Iraqis themselves stand better chance of autonomously constructing a stable state without the presence of an occupier. Neocons are but liberal Wilsonian world-improvers with an ample slice of "what's good for Israel" thrown in the utopian mix.

   Posted by tradright at 11/28/2008 @ 4:56pm