Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Background to the Iraqi-U.S. Security Agreements
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Two events and one document frame the historical context of two pending agreements that will guide U.S.-Iraqi relations over the next three to 10 years: the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA).

Ink stains mark that first event: Iraq's January 2005 elections. Recall "expert pessimism" dominated the international media's coverage of that election. The election would fail. But it didn't. Despite the dour predictions, millions of Iraqis responded. Voters dipped their fingers in blue ink -- a simple but dramatic way to show they had gone to the polls. An ink-stained finger became a symbol of the individual and social courage it took to start a national democratic political process.

The second event occurred in spring 2008: the Iraqi Army's Operation Charge of the Knights. Declared an immediate failure by an overwhelming majority of the talk show and editorial elites, Knights Charge smashed Shia gangs in Basra and hit Iranian-financed "special groups" throughout southern Iraq.

Knights Charge was a carefully integrated political-military operation. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made it clear Knights Charge was planned and executed by the Iraqis themselves. Maliki and his government know they are waging a political war, and Knights Charge was a military operation with major political objectives. One was to further isolate Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shia thugs. Another key political objective was to solidify Maliki's nationalist credentials.

Iraq Kurds and Sunni Arabs praised Knights Charge. Maliki's Shia Arab-dominated government was targeting and defeating Shia radicals, many of them in cahoots with Iran.

Knights Charge not only demonstrated maturing Iraqi Army capabilities, but it showed the central government was an Iraqi national government.

As for the document behind the agreements: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 (passed on June 8, 2004) ratified the general thrust of U.S. political development policy in Iraq and mapped a route to full Iraqi sovereignty. When I reported for duty in Baghdad in May 2004, the first paper on my desk was a draft of Resolution 1546. I thought it read like an open-source campaign plan outlining the interim and often frustratingly incremental successes required to create a democratic Iraqi state. In retrospect, that's precisely what it was.

The resolution's security section has immediate resonance for the pending Iraqi-U.S. security agreements. It praised "ongoing efforts" by Iraq "to develop Iraqi security forces ... operating under the authority of the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors." Those forces "will progressively play a greater role and ultimately assume full responsibility for the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq."

Since late 2007, the United States and Iraqi have been negotiating the SFA and SOFA agreements, which are another step in the Resolution 1546 process.

According to the Bush administration, the SFA establishes a normal "bilateral arrangement" (sovereign state to sovereign state) addressing the social, political and economic dimensions of the Iraqi-U.S. relationship. The SFA has no closure date.

SOFA runs from January 2009 through December 2011. It calls for Iraqi control of Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and a pullout of U.S. combat forces by the end of 2011. The mid-2009 turnover is in line with the current U.S. conditions-based schedule for turning security in all 18 Iraqi provinces over to Iraqi forces.

According to the Bush administration, if conditions in 2011 warrant a change in the agreement, Iraq and the United States can negotiate a follow-on agreement or "adjust the agreement based on new conditions." The Iraqi government always has the right to request U.S. technical assistance -- with securing control of Iraqi air space being an example of close Iraqi-U.S. cooperation.

Maliki's government believes it has the votes in Iraq's parliament to confirm these agreements. The parliamentary debate on the agreements is itself remarkable -- an open democratic debate on national security in a nation ruled by a murderous tyrant six years ago. The ink-stained fingers pointed the way.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Iraq?
Almost an afterthought for the media.

Now that the war is winding down in favor of the USA, the major news media outlets ignore it.

Speaks volumes about the media.

Ranger29

You don't know why we were in Iraq?

You must watch a Liberal news media outlet.

anderson659 From AZ

You are correct. Many Liberals claim they don't know why we were in Iraq. They don't know about Saddam Hussein's Crimes against Humanity. They don't know Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Vadimire Putan, the U.N. the Presidents of Eygpt, Jordan, France, Germany, Italy, and many of Saddam's generals all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They don't know about Rape rooms and mass graves. They don't know about Saddam funding of terrorism. They don't know Al Quadda was going to Iraq when they needed medical treatment.

Yes there are a lot Liberals who don't know the reasons for the war in Iraq. Perhaps the Liberal mass media kept them in the dark. Ya think?

We do know Liberals supported Bill Clinton removing Milosovic in Yogoslavia and he never had weapons of mass destruction, he never attacked or threatened any neighboring countries. He never had rape rooms or mass graves with 100,000 bodies, never supported terrorist, never had or used weapons of mass destruction.

I am sure if Liberals knew more about Iraq, they would support removing Saddam just to maintain some form of intellectual integrity.

Why we are in Iraq
We went there to prevent Saddam Hussein from sharing his weapons of mass destruction (Which he didn't have) with the El Qaeda (Who hated him as much as he hated them.) The president and Secretary of State Powell made that very clear. Also, according to Allan Greenspan, we were there for the oil. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214 .ece

And who will trust America next?
Democrats betrayed the South Vietnamese.
Now Democrats are going to betray the people of Iran.

Our Intelligence Operatives were left overs from Clinton.
Democrats, (including Hillary Clinton), were on the Intelligence Committee.
Democrats voted to go to war against Saddam.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2. html

Then Democrats condemn the war for political expediency.

If we sell the Iranians short we will eventually need to retake that same ground.
Do you think they would trust us again?
Do you think anyone anywhere would trust Democrats?
Democrats even betray their own country for political gain.

WMD?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/133526.sht ml

Weakness attracts aggression.
Weak people are about to take the Helm of America.

Democrats intend to decimate our military and allow their weapons to become obsolete.
This is false economy.
This has been done twice in the past.
Each time it resulted in a World War!
A strong America serves to stabilize world peace.

NO NEWS COVERAGE IN IRAQ
THIS WAS SUPPOSE TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF THE ELECTION SEASON. IT TURNED OUT TO BE THE ECONOMY. THE MEDIA DID NOT THE GOODNEWS IN IRAQ DISTRUPTING THE ELECTION OF OBAMA.

Dilemna
This leaves Obama between Barack and a hard place.

Either he torpedoes a hard-won victory by abrogating legally binding agreements or he alienates large portions of his base by failing to engineer the disaster they demand.

And if he is really fumble-fingered he does both.

I of course hope and pray that he finds a way to do neither. If he does he will have managed to nuetralize hostile elements both here and abroad.

I can't stand the S.O.B., but I wish him well.

Hello New conditions
The democrats won big. They have a Congressional leadership and a president to be who've said that everything about Iraq has been wrong. This agreement is bogus. The new congress said they would be pulling troops out. The new president said we should never have been there.
Why the Heck will it take so long to get a couple hundred thousand troops out? Why can't Obama develop a coalition of the willing to provide the resources and get us out in a couple of months? The answer of course is that they(The democrat congressional leadership)never did want the troops out when they had the call.
The question is will the constituents demand action or be willing pawns to democrat inaction.

Although I tend to agree with the posts which say we should do the responsible (take credit for taking a tyrant out and help develop a free nation and thus stay the course) but the thing is WE DIDN'T WIN. The responsible thing according to the democrats was never get in (though most voted for) and then to evacuate the troops asap.
If their ideas win in a fair election then they should be held to account for making their ideas work.

America is suffering
America is suffering unlawful deception from the Alinsky group.
Group u$urp$ power on January 20th—the constitution violated.
The United States Supreme Court alone can relieve this outrage.

example: Bogus Selective Service System FOIA Registration?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_d id_n.html
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.