Couch Guests

I heard part of a conference call the National Security Network organized yesterday about the negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Skip Gnehm, who's been ambassador to Kuwait, Australia, and Jordan as well as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and a number of other prominent positions made a couple of provocative points. One, he points out that "in all of my experience, there are no SOFA agreements that authorize military action." In other words, we have agreements with Germany, Italy, South Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries governing the presence of U.S. military forces in those countries, but none of them authorize the use of military force inside the host country or against the host country's citizens. Analogies between the SOFA the Bush administration is putting together with Iraq and standard alliance relationships are, in other words, totally invalid.

The other point he made had to do with the problems, historically, that have been posed by pushing too aggressively for these basing deals. He said that Britain had long had a security agreement with Iraq, but "post-WWII there was a moment in time when the British really insisted on the Iraqis that they needed to extend that agreement" which led to "riots on the streets, broad opposition across tribes and ethnic groups" and eventually the Prime Minister had to flee the country. Long story short, "British pressure undermined the government in Iraq, and undermined their own standing in the country.” Here's Wikipedia's account of the matter:

Meanwhile, Britain attempted to legalize a permanent military presence in Iraq even beyond the terms of the 1930 treaty, although it no longer had World War II to justify its continued presence there. Both Nuri and the regent increasingly saw their unpopular links with Great Britain as the best guarantee of their own position, and accordingly set about cooperating in the creation of a new Anglo-Iraqi Treaty. In early January 1948 Nuri himself joined the negotiating delegation in England, and on 15 January the treaty was signed.

The response on the streets of Baghdad was immediate and furious. After six years of British occupation, no single act could have been less popular than giving the British an even larger legal role in Iraq's affairs. Demonstrations broke out the following day, with students playing a prominent part and the Communist Party guiding much of the anti-government activity. The protests intensified over the following days, until the police fired on a mass demonstration (20 January), leaving many casualties. On the following dayt, `Abd al-Ilah disavowed the new treaty. Nuri returned to Baghdad on 26 January and immediately implemented a harsh policy of repression against the protesters. At mass demonstration the next day, police fired again at the protesters, leaving many more dead.

The Monarchy held on to power until the late 1950s, at which point Nuri "was shot dead and buried that same day, but an angry mob disinterred his corpse and dragged it through the streets of Baghdad, where it was hung up, burned, and mutilated."

Now on the flipside, the Western oil companies who are securing no-bid contracts in Iraq are going to want to hire Western security contractors to defend their interests, and apparently one of the things the Bush administration is pushing for is a continuation of the situation where legally unaccountable foreign mercenaries can be introduced into Iraq willy-nilly.

Comments

What do you mean by "legally unaccountable foreign mercenaries"? Are you referring to US security forces? Or US troops more generally? I never know what you lefties are thinking. Surely you don't think that the US-Iraq SOFA would govern "Western" security contractors; the point is to govern agents of the US. But why miss a chance to talk about oil; most of your readers will instantly salivate.

I'd be curious, as a historical matter, whether there are examples of SOFAs that allowed the US what the US has requested from Iraq. For example, when sovereignty was returned to Japan and West Germany after WWII, what rights did the US have? I don't think that examples of SOFAs with nations where the US is not actually engaged in an armed conflict are particularly useful as comparisons. In any case, since the SOFA with Iraq would authorize, but wouldn't require, US action, there remains an essential commonality among the SOFAs the US has entered into--the point of all of them is to maximize protections for US troops in the anticipated circumstances those troops will face.

Posted by Thomas | June 21, 2008 10:44 AM

Just letting you know, Matt, that someone (me) caught the SOFA/"Couch Guest" connection, and that your more subtle wit is appreciated.

Posted by James Gary | June 21, 2008 11:12 AM

Its nice to see your primary understanding of Iraqi history comes from Wikipedia.

Posted by Matt S. | June 21, 2008 11:44 AM

"Its nice to see your primary understanding of Iraqi history comes from Wikipedia."

And your's comes from where? A little substance with you snark, please.

Posted by Butch | June 21, 2008 11:47 AM

What do you mean by "legally unaccountable foreign mercenaries"? Are you referring to US security forces? Or US troops more generally?

No, he's referring to mercenaries, not US troops. That's why he used the term "mercenaries".

The Washington Post reported:

Iraqi officials said the U.S. government also demanded the continuation of several current policies: authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.

The US is trying to get private contractors - ie, mercenaries - immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Posted by DivGuy | June 21, 2008 11:50 AM

FWIW, the U.S. has given up the attempt to guarantee immunity for contractors.

Posted by Clive A. | June 21, 2008 12:08 PM

MY - In other words, we have agreements with Germany, Italy, South Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries governing the presence of U.S. military forces in those countries, but none of them authorize the use of military force inside the host country or against the host country's citizens.

Incorrect. US forces are authorized to use force to protect base and personnel. In Germany, the hole reason for being there was to fight inside W Germany if the Warsaw Pact attacked. Same with Korea, and in Korea, forward-based troops by the DMZ are authorized to arrest if possible, kill if necessary, any Koreans suspected of being NORK spies, infiltrators. In the Philippines, the US was asked now and then to help out against Moro and Huk (Commies).

Posted by chris ford | June 21, 2008 12:57 PM

with students playing a prominent part and the Communist Party guiding much of the anti-government activity.

Oh. Maybe this is why we hear so much from people about how "bad" the communists are supposed to be? Because when they're able to, the communists don't let Richie Rich get his way? You keep hearing people sat that socialists will destroy our society and our "values," but there doesn't seem to be anything about socialism or communism that necessarily requires it do that (seems to me that, as with any "-ism," what it practices has a lot more to do with the people who are in charge of it than it has to do with the claims of the movement's doctrine and dogma).

at which point Nuri "was shot dead and buried that same day, but an angry mob disinterred his corpse and dragged it through the streets of Baghdad, where it was hung up, burned, and mutilated."

These people actually don't sound like flower-strewers to me. They sound kinda touchy and very concerned with not having their freedom and independence trampled on. I wish somebody would have told me.

Posted by Swan | June 21, 2008 1:43 PM

DivGuy, from that same Washington Post article you quote:

Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of parliament who has been briefed on the negotiations, said the Americans recently had changed their position on four key issues: Private contractors would no longer be guaranteed immunity; detainees would be turned over to the Iraqi judicial system after combat operations; U.S. troops would operate only with the agreement of the Iraqi government; and the Americans would promise not to use Iraq as a base for attacking other countries.

"Now the American position is much more positive and more flexible than before," said Mohammed Hamoud, an Iraqi deputy foreign minister who is a lead negotiator in the talks.

The fact that the Iraq government is insisting on demands to maximize their sovereignty, and the fact that the U.S. is conceding to such demands in an effort to reach an agreement would seem to make most of the sophomoric comparisons of the SOFA to the two Anglo-Iraqi treaties inapt.

As for comparisons of the SOFA with Iraq to other SOFAs, I think it is important to remember that our position in Iraq is different than our position in the countries mentioned (i.e. Germany, Italy, South Korea, etc.). In none of those countries is the central government susceptible to a coup d'etat by militants or otherwise under siege by terrorist forces. Iraq is a complete unique situation and should therefore require a different set of circumstances, which is exactly why SOFAs are negotiated country-by-country, to take into account the needs and purpose of the military deployment.

Posted by John Farmer | June 21, 2008 2:00 PM

Oh. Maybe this is why we hear so much from people about how "bad" the communists are supposed to be?

No, it's because communism sucks when applied to anything higher than the extended family level.

Posted by Kolohe | June 21, 2008 2:36 PM

That's a real name, "Gnehm"?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 21, 2008 3:10 PM

I'm surprised no one has used the phrase 'monopoly on the use of force' yet. It's a defining characteristic of a functioning soverign state -- namely, that the national government has such a monopoly. Anyone using force within the state's borders who is not authorized by the national government to use such force is breaking the law. For Iraq to allow American personnel -- whether military of civilian-contractor -- to use force at their own discretion would mean that the Iraqi government would not be sovereign within its own territory. Iraq would not be a sovereign nation.

If the Bush Administration is pushing for a SOFA that allows American personnel to use force without authorization from the Iraqi government, then by definition the Bush Administration does not want the Iraqi government to be sovereign. It wants it to be a vassal, a puppet, a colony, a protectorate -- whatever you want to call it. But not a sovereign nation.

Posted by DNS | June 21, 2008 4:14 PM

The sole purpose of this SOFA is to provide legal cover for Bush to attack Iran from Iraqi soil.

The Iraqis aren't going to stand for that: neither the Shia on Maliki's side who work for Iran, nor Sadr who has already said he would support Iran against the US, nor will the senior clerics.

Pepe Escobar explains:

THE ROVING EYE
Why Iraq won't be South Korea
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF20Ak03.html

And the invasion of Iraq was finally conceptualized as a "demonstration project" - the push to create in the Mesopotamian sands a US-style, wealthy consumer society, a demilitarized client state under benign US protection. Better yet, a 21st century version of the South Korean "tiger" miracle - engineered by US military-technological power.

But it all went way beyond Iraq as a new South Korea. David Harvey, the brilliant Oxford-educated American geographer who proposes, in his own words, long-term geopolitical analysis based on "historical-geographical materialism", wrote in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq offered "a vital strategic bridgehead ... on the Eurasian land mass that just happens to be the center of production of the oil that currently fuels (and will continue to fuel for at least the next 50 years) not only the global economy but also every large military machine that dares to oppose that of the United States."

An empire of military bases and control of oil fields. These two crucial "benchmarks", applied to Iraq, are what's left of that alliance between the neo-cons and the Christian Right which took over the US government with an imperial project of military rule over global oil resources. Now it's twilight time; and no wonder the Bush administration has come out with all guns blazing. Without a new, US Big Oil-friendly Iraqi oil law, and without a SOFA, US$3 trillion - according to Joseph Stiglitz's and Linda Bilmes' book - will have been spent for nothing.

However, on Thursday, the New York Times reported that Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP were in the final stages of negotiations on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization by Saddam Hussein.

They are reportedly in negotiations with the Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields. Should the deals go through, they would lay the foundation for the first commercial work for major Western companies in Iraq since the American invasion in 2003. It is expected that Iraq's output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million.

Initially, the Bush administration wanted no less than 58 permanent US bases in Iraq. There are already 30 in place. It doesn't matter that on April 8, US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had said the US "will not establish permanent bases in Iraq and we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them".

The Bush administration's ploy essentially amounts to turning over legal control of US bases to a client regime. Heavy pressure is the name of the game. To convince the Iraqis, the Bush administration is holding no less than $50 billion of Iraqi money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Other "subtle" forms of pressure also apply. The Iraqis wanted to sell oil in euros as well as in dollars. The Bush administration issued its fatwa - and it's a "no".

This shady deal the Bush administration wants so badly is a SOFA only in theory. In fact, it's a smokescreen. Under US law, it would have to be submitted to the senate. The Bush administration wants to totally bypass the senate.

And the deal is not about Iraq either. It's essentially about Iran - as in the neo-con 2003 mantra "real men go to Tehran". That's the meaning of the Bush administration demand, according to Iraqi lawmakers, of "the right ... to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security."

The Bush administration wants to totally control Iraqi airspace. The Bush administration wants to employ US firepower without approval from the "sovereign" Iraqi government. The Bush administration wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American troops and even dozens of thousands of contractors - most of them Blackwater-style mercenaries. The US Army simply cannot function properly without these privatized warriors.

Were a deal to be reached under the current terms - the deadline remains July 31 - nothing would be easier for the Bush administration than to accuse Iran of interfering in Iraq - as it is already doing non stop - and then attack Iran under the "legal" cover of this SOFA.

The Bush administration also would have a hard time getting the US Congress to explicitly approve an attack on Iran. So why not use the Iraqi Parliament instead? No wonder scores of Iraqi parliamentarians, Sunni and Shi'ite alike, fear the deal is basically a cover to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran. Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, went to Tehran and solemnly promised that Iraq would not be used as a US base for an attack on Iran.

The only man who can stop the deal dead in its tracks is Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. True, he fears that without critical US support the Shi'ite parties in government will be much more fragile. But Sistani also fears the street power of Muqtada al-Sadr - who called the Sadrists to demonstrate every Friday against the deal, until it is scrapped.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 21, 2008 8:57 PM

Excellent post by John Farmer, which in terms of "monopoly" DNS should read.

Iraq, like Germany and Japan, lost its sovereignty totally as a result of its aggressive malfeasance. This sovereignty is now being returned in what seems likely to be viewed by history as among the most responsible and effective such processes ever.

Posted by robert powell | June 22, 2008 5:43 AM

Those that would seek to criticize Matt & other commenters here for wrongly comparing the Iraq proposed SOFA to, say, Germany or South Korea, should probably bear in mind that it is in fact the proponents of the Iraq SOFA who did so -- including Republican standard bearer John McCain.

If you think you're achieving some sort of point on the host by pointing out that the situation in Iraq differs greatly from South Korea or Germany, either now or in the past, well, you're actually making Matt's point.

Posted by El Cid | June 22, 2008 5:57 AM

In Germany, the hole reason for being there was to fight inside W Germany if the Warsaw Pact attacked.

Yes, but only in the case of a full-scale military attack by foreign troops and this case was covered by NATO agreements. Absent this case, the US troops had no right to deal with West-German citizens. If you cannot make that distinction, I cannot help you.

In none of those countries is the central government susceptible to a coup d'etat by militants or otherwise under siege by terrorist forces.

Well, actually the government of West-Germany was under threat during the 70s and there were terrorist attacks against both US and NATO installations throughout the 80s. Yet, never did US forces take action within West-Germany and would they have done so all hell would have broken loose. Instead they left things to the West-German authorities.

Posted by novakant | June 22, 2008 6:41 AM

yhsvb shxcnmbg lnscfbqet ktuwmno rqkj vqcbtmos nsbgti

Posted by durjcqs yfjkxzsna | June 26, 2008 4:02 PM

yhsvb shxcnmbg lnscfbqet ktuwmno rqkj vqcbtmos nsbgti

Posted by durjcqs yfjkxzsna | June 26, 2008 4:04 PM