No Deal

Nouri al-Maliki says no deal with the Bush administration:

He says the initial framework agreed upon was to have been an accord "between two completely sovereign states." But he says the U.S. proposals "do not take into consideration Iraq's sovereignty."

The prime minister said Friday "this is not acceptable." The American demands "violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we reached a dead end."

Which is as it should be. Given that we're clearly not going to withdraw troops as long as Bush is in office, the only reasonable thing is to have the U.N. extend the resolution governing our presence there and let the bilateral relationship be formalized after the U.S. presidential election. Then we can have a debate between one candidate whose Iraq policy will be centered around trying to leave in a responsible manner, and another candidate whose Iraq policy will be centered around Bush-esque efforts to set ourselves up there permanently.

Meanwhile, some attention could be paid to Iraq's upcoming provincial elections where one suspects some shenanigans are likely in play and the U.S. and the international community should be trying to see if it's not possible to achieve a reasonably fair outcome.

Comments

Really excellent news. I didn't think that the Iraqi government was going to stand up to the only military in Iraq.

On the other hand, there have been enough situations where western reporters completely misread Iraqi statements and political organizations, so I want to wait a day or two to be sure this really happened.

Posted by DivGuy | June 13, 2008 10:55 AM

I'm never quite certain where Maliki is going. Some days, he seems happy to be Bush's puppet, but every now and then he shows some backbone (and the ability to function off his strings).

Overall, this hasn't been a good week for the President. The Supreme Court slaps his down yet again and now Maliki is turning him down.

Interesting week indeed.

Posted by David Marks | June 13, 2008 10:59 AM

Yeah, I'm with DivGuy...these things have a way of coming back from the dead.

If it does, I'd really like to see Obama announce clearly that he will not consider himself bound by any status-of-forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration, so the Iraqi government should just wait.

Posted by Glenn | June 13, 2008 11:00 AM

I'd really like to see Obama announce clearly that he will not consider himself bound by any status-of-forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration

Yes. Obama should have his legal team draft "pre-election 'rubber/glue' signing statements" declaring, in advance, all the laws and agreements he won't consider himself bound by if elected.

Posted by James Gary | June 13, 2008 11:23 AM

DivGuy: remember that the Iranians control at least a half of the strings on Maliki. Sistani's objection, the objection of Sadr and the nationalists and so on: it was all too much I think, especially with Bush on the way out and Obama looking viable. Well domestic US concerns have always dominated the goings on in the emerald city. No reason why that should stop now.

Matt: you can't be serious about the US guaranteeing that there is no monkey business in the elections. Apart from the minor issue of competence, you can't think that they won't be trying to guarantee the 'right' outcome just like everyone else.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 13, 2008 11:25 AM

There is a debate whether it is realistic to be able to leave in 16 months in a responsible manner, particularly when you have signalled your intention to withdraw by that artificial deadline. If the situation continues to improve and the Iraqi governments wants an indefinite troop presence, then why is that unreasonable? As long as casualties continue to decline.

Posted by Tim K | June 13, 2008 11:25 AM

Meanwhile, some attention could be paid to Iraq's upcoming provincial elections where one suspects some shenanigans are likely in play and the U.S. ... should be trying to see if it's not possible to achieve a reasonably fair outcome.

Yes, because there's no way that the U.S. might be spearheading any of those electoral shenanigans.

Posted by Steve Balboni | June 13, 2008 11:31 AM

Yes. Obama should have his legal team draft "pre-election 'rubber/glue' signing statements" declaring, in advance, all the laws and agreements he won't consider himself bound by if elected.

What, you mean like Bush has with his signing statements? Or his abrogation of signed treaties? Look, I'll spell it out so even you can understand it, moron: Laws, Obama has no choice on, other than to try to get the new Congress to change them. And to the extent that an agreement has been put into the form of a treaty, same deal. But Bush has no intention of submitting this "agreement" to the Senate for ratification. So it has no force of law, and Obama will be free to rescind it. Now, it obviously isn't wise policy for each administration to simply repudiate the commitments of the prior one (again, however, see George W Bush). But on this particular issue, since Bush's plan is obviously an attempt to tie the hands of the next administration, Obama should make it clear that such attempt will not be effective.

Posted by Glenn | June 13, 2008 11:32 AM

There is a debate whether it is realistic to be able to leave in 16 months in a responsible manner, particularly when you have signalled your intention to withdraw by that artificial deadline. If the situation continues to improve and the Iraqi governments wants an indefinite troop presence, then why is that unreasonable? As long as casualties continue to decline.

Posted by Tim K | June 13, 2008 11:32 AM

TimK: If I were an Iraqi leader, I'd want the US to keep pouring billions of dollars into my Swiss bank accounts and protecting me with Marines and Halliburton operatives until I can cash in my chips and move to the South of France. Apparently you would too.

For this American, however, I'd prefer my tax dollars were spent in some useful way rather than outfitting an Iraqi politician's European villa.

Posted by riffle | June 13, 2008 11:42 AM

If the situation continues to improve and the Iraqi governments wants an indefinite troop presence, then why is that unreasonable?

That might be an interesting question, if we were in an alternate universe where the Iraqi government wants an indefinite troop presence.

Posted by 23456 | June 13, 2008 11:45 AM

The financial argument is very short-sighted. If the US withdraws by 2010 and the situation deteriorates so badly that there has to be a re-intervention, how much do you all figure that will cost?

If the Iraqi government is negotiating a long-term security agreement with the US that implies they want some US presence to continue over the coming years, and not to end within 16 months of January. I do agree no final agreement should be ratified until after the new Congress and president is elected.

Posted by Tim K | June 13, 2008 11:53 AM

What, you mean like Bush has with his signing statements? Or his abrogation of signed treaties? Look, I'll spell it out so even you can understand it, moron...

Note to Glenn: my original comment was intended ironically.

Posted by James Gary | June 13, 2008 11:55 AM

Young Master Yglesias:

This post is a (missed) golden opportunity to use this

image. :)

Posted by nikkos | June 13, 2008 11:56 AM

Young Master Yglesias:

This post is a (missed) golden opportunity to use this

image. :)

Posted by nikkos | June 13, 2008 11:57 AM

Young Master Yglesias:

This post is a (missed) golden opportunity to use this

image. :)

Posted by nikkos | June 13, 2008 11:58 AM

Things are difficult enough for the Iraqis to resolve without the pressure placed by the outgoing BushCo Syndicate on a status of forces agreement and provincial elections.

Best answer: kick it down the road until Spring 2009 - including renewal of the Security Council occupation authorization, which should be made month to month only if the Iraqi parliament requests it.

My guess (and hope/belief) is that any internal Iraqi compromise government (including at the provincial level) can only be agreed to if the US is headed out the door on a schedule known to all.

Obama, and the US House/Senate by resolution (which can not be vetoed), should declare any Bush agreement not binding on the next President and Congress - that will clear the minds of those in Iraq's contending parties and make unnecessary any further US negotiations until next spring.

If Bush won't operate on a month-to-month Sec. Council resolution (which depends on Iraqi legislative agreement), then he can withdraw the US troops, and save the US from a big argument while incenting the Iraqis to face their future.

We should not let Bush/Cheney bind up our future after f**cking up our last eight years.

Posted by jimportlandor | June 13, 2008 12:04 PM

Things are difficult enough for the Iraqis to resolve without the pressure placed by the outgoing BushCo Syndicate on a status of forces agreement and provincial elections.

Best answer: kick it down the road until Spring 2009 - including renewal of the Security Council occupation authorization, which should be made month to month only if the Iraqi parliament requests it.

My guess (and hope/belief) is that any internal Iraqi compromise government (including at the provincial level) can only be agreed to if the US is headed out the door on a schedule known to all.

Obama, and the US House/Senate by resolution (which can not be vetoed), should declare any Bush agreement not binding on the next President and Congress - that will clear the minds of those in Iraq's contending parties and make unnecessary any further US negotiations until next spring.

If Bush won't operate on a month-to-month Sec. Council resolution (which depends on Iraqi legislative agreement), then he can withdraw the US troops, and save the US from a big argument while incenting the Iraqis to face their future.

We should not let Bush/Cheney bind up our future after f**cking up our last eight years.

Posted by jimportlandor | June 13, 2008 12:08 PM

"I'm never quite certain where Maliki is going. Some days, he seems happy to be Bush's puppet, "

He wants to remain president.

"...but every now and then he shows some backbone"

He wants to remain living after the Americans leave.

Posted by Njorl | June 13, 2008 12:33 PM

It seems to me that it is a little inconsistent to

a) Want American troops out of Iraq ASAP
b) Want American troops to police Iraqi elections.

Do we have business in Iraq that requires troops there, or do we not? If not, then don't mess about saying "but we should fix X before we leave". If we do, then say so and commit to the hundred-year occupation.

Posted by Rolf | June 13, 2008 1:11 PM

Brzenzski long ago said that the sensible policy would be to encourage Iraq's government to ask the U.S. to leave.

This is a good sign for Obama. Leaving Iraq will certainly be hastened by an American government that invites an Iraqi government to request withdrawal, and the end of occupation.

Which is just how it might go down. The whole DC oriented argument, in which all policy flows unilaterally from Washington, would be nicely upended. The establishment, which wants to stay in Iraq and work up to a point where war with Iran is inevitable, would be kicked in the teeth. Not hard enough, but at least enough to get the U.S. out of Iraq - which should have happened in 2006. Or 2007.

Wow, an unexpected byproduct of the U.S. support for the Badr Brigade and Maliki's invasion of Basra might just be to strengthen Maliki's hand in kicking the U.S. out. Is that sweet or what? Talk about unexpected consequences...

Posted by roger | June 13, 2008 2:23 PM

ps - taking the long view, it is funny how Iraq is working out. The war was pushed by a cabal of reactionaries who were working hand in glove with a cabal of reactionaries in Israel. One of the goals of these reactionaries was to make eretz Israel the most powerful nation in the Middle East. Pursuing this policy, they are busy entrenching the power of a Shiite Islamicist state, a strong ally of Iran and Hezbollah. The Shiite states, coordinating their oil policy in the future, will match the conservative Gulf states. Plus, of course, Hezbollah will be the beneficiary of Iraqi and Iranian largesse.

In other words, the reactionaries have jeopardized Israel's very existence in the long term future. The talks between Israel and Syria are the effects of that fact slowly being recognized by Israel's governing class. Meanwhile, they have made the U.S. measurably weaker. The reactionaries, so to speak, mixed up chemicals in a test tube and had it blow up in their face. It would be Loony Tunes funny if there weren't all those dead bodies to remind us that the reactionaries are thugs in suits, war criminals and profiteers, and deserve the contempt of humanity.

Posted by roger | June 13, 2008 2:40 PM

As I've said before, if Maliki pisses off Sistani, he's a goner - and possibly dead. If he pisses off the Iranians, he's a goner - and definitely dead. If he pisses off the US, he's a goner - but probably still alive and living in London in exile with several billion in Swiss banks.

Easy choice.

Maliki has no future in Iraq and he knows it. The nationalists are going to sweep the provincial and parliamentary elections and oust him from office, no matter what he or the US does. And if he and/or the US rigs the elections, the Sadr and Sunni insurgencies will explode again.

And the Iranians are NOT going to allow him to agree to 58 US bases to allow the US to attack Iran from Iraq.

And Sistani is not going to allow any significant number of US troops to remain in Iraq.

So Maliki has no future except comfortable exile - or buried quickly after being shot in the head. He's just trying to maneuver between those two futures carefully so that the US doesn't throw him to the wolves or the wolves kill him because the US didn't throw him to the wolves.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 13, 2008 7:02 PM

"There is a debate whether it is realistic to be able to leave in 16 months in a responsible manner, particularly when you have signalled your intention to withdraw by that artificial deadline. If the situation continues to improve and the Iraqi governments wants an indefinite troop presence, then why is that unreasonable? As long as casualties continue to decline.”

Well, there is the whole issue of reducing casualties. Easier said than done, easier typed than done as well. A good month in Iraq would be headline news in Germany or Japan.

Then there is the issue of the impression it gives the rest of the Arab world when we have tens of thousands of troops stationed, in perpetuity, in the greatest city in the ancient Arab world. It isn’t clear that the Iraqi government currently in power represents the will of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people. Unless of course that you believe that Iraq is quiet and peaceful or that all violence is a result of the incorrectly labeled AQI. Even then, sometimes impression can carry greater weight than reality.

There is a documentary called “Control Room”, it was a behind the scenes look at Al-Jeezera in the heady days of 2003 and 2004. I will never forget the spectacle of an attractive Arab newswoman, dressed like any such figure would be dressed here in the US, bemoaning the lack of Republican Guard forces defending the stature of Saddam Hussein from US Army forces. She was no fan of Saddam but she didn’t much care for the war itself though. It brought home the fact how people from across the globe can be different and the same, simultaneously.

Posted by Raindog | June 14, 2008 1:49 AM

"If the situation continues to improve and the Iraqi governments wants an indefinite troop presence, then why is that unreasonable? As long as casualties continue to decline.”

See, this is where the argument gets truly stupid.

The notion is that just because violence is down (as a result of 1) Sadr's ceasefire over the last nine months), and 2) the Sunnis decided they couldn't fight the US and the Shia at the same time, so they decided to soak the US for money in exchange for a few foreign Al Qaeda types), the presumption is that the Iraqis - the PEOPLE, not the puppet government - will want the US to remain indefinitely.

Every poll shows that is not the case. The majority of Iraqis want the US out NOW, and even more want them out within a year, and a huge percentage approve of violent attacks on US troops. This has been true for years now.

The senior clerics in Najaf have said that continued US presence is unacceptable.

The Sadr movement has said that is unacceptable.

The Sunnis have said that is unacceptable.

Iran would regard it as unacceptable - and they control the rest of the Shia militias outside of Sadr (and they give support to Sadr, too, allegedly).

Given all that, what hypothetical universe do these morons live in that they can ASSUME that US casualties will ALWAYS be down no matter HOW long the US remains in Iraq? Especially as long as US forces continue to bomb and kill Iraqi civilians?

It's fucking brain dead.

There are REASONS why the casualties are down AT THE MOMENT. Those REASONS are not cast in stone and they are not eternal. They are as fragile as wet toilet paper.

Even if the US didn't kill one more Iraqi civilian, there are enough Iraqis pissed off at the US for directly killing an estimated three hundred thousand of their relatives (not to mention the half million children killed during the sanctions regime, and the four million displaced by the war) to continue killing US troops for the next TWO GENERATIONS of Iraqis!

Anybody who says casualties will "continue to decline", presumably to nothing eventually, is a fucking moron with zero knowledge of what has gone on and what is going on in Iraq.

So shut the fuck up.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 14, 2008 3:50 AM