Cheer Up! The Birthright Citizenship Case Moves Us Toward Inevitable Victory
Justice Clarence Thomas Concurrence Contains a Line That the Libs Are Going to...
The Liberal Media Had a Total Meltdown Over the Transgender Athlete Ruling
Dem Senate Candidate: Jefferson's Memorial Should Be Ripped Down
Social Media Erupts Over Naked Marchers Prancing Through Pride Parade in Front of...
The European Climate Cult Demands Human Sacrifice
Rep. Jayapal Insists Socialism Is Popular, Despite Losing Working-Class Voters
Poll Shows Susan Collins Winning Working-Class Voters by a Wide Margin
Did Gavin Newsom Really Just Talk About 'Fiscal Discipline'?
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Assault Weapon Bans
Spencer Pratt Has Been on a Rampage Against Socialism
Justice Kavanaugh May Have Handed the United States a Roadmap to Fix Birthright...
Justice Jackson's Dissent in the Trans Athlete Case Is Absolutely Insane
FLASHBACK: Harry Reid Once Proposed Similar Bill to Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
Sen. Eric Schmitt Declares War on Birthright Citizenship After 'Disastrous' Supreme Court...
OPINION

Background to the Iraqi-U.S. Security Agreements

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Background to the Iraqi-U.S. Security Agreements

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).

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement