So Much For Those Permanent Bases

by: Chris LeJeune

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:18:34 PM EDT

Iraqi PM is negotiating defense agreement with US that will set timetable for full US troop pullout.

Baghdad, 08 July 2008 (Middle East Online)

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday that he is negotiating a deal with Washington that will provide for only a short-term US troop presence beyond this year and will also set a timetable for a full withdrawal.

It was the first time that Iraq had made a pullout deadline a condition for a promised new agreement with the United States setting the basis for a troop presence into 2009.

Maliki is requesting a timeline for withdrawal?  This is sure to embolden our enemies.  I seem to remember, however, certain senators and congressmen here who have requested the same before.  A majority of the Iraqi parliament requested this in the summer of 2007, and again this year.  They even sent a parliamentary delegation to discuss this with our congress.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates.

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.

As I have mentioned before, most Iraqis view the SOFA with the US as an encroachment on their sovereignty.

It was the first time that the Shiite prime minister had specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal, something that President George W. Bush has repeatedly refused to set.

Bush and Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq by the end of July to set the basis for a US troop presence beyond December this year when the UN mandate runs out.

But discussions appeared to be deadlocked last month amid strong opposition from Iraqi politicians both Sunni and Shiite, with some Shiite leaders denouncing the proposed agreement as "eternal slavery."

Shiite radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who has a broad popular base among the Shiite poor in cities across central and southern Iraq, has been particularly outspoken in his demands for a US withdrawal timetable.

Last Wednesday, Zebari said if the new US security pact were not finalised by July 31, there were two options for Iraq.

One is to enter into a substitute bilateral agreement, the other to request the UN to extend its mandate by another year, he said.

Zebari stressed that the United States could not stay in Iraq without an international legal framework, while any security arrangement would be for "one or two years" only, and not for decades.

I guess that rules out the 100 year plan too.

UPDATE: In 2004, McCain admitted we'd leave Iraq if the Iraqi's wanted us to:

With news coming from Nouri al-Maliki that he is leaning towards a security pact with the U.S. that would include language describing the "departure of [American] forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," one wonders how this would affect John McCain's plan for perpetual troop presence in Iraq. Well, at the Council of Foreign Relations, the John McCain of 2004 gave us a pretty clear answer:

   Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

   McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Does the John McCain of 2008 agree with this assessment?