Security Framework Paradox

Ilan Goldenberg ably summarizes the current Catch-22 of Bush administration Iraq policy, which involves both pushing through a very unpopular (in Iraq) permanent basing agreement and pushing Iraq to hold parliamentary elections. In the face of the looming elections, however, it's very hard to get ISCI and Dawa politicians to support the basing agreement lest they get creamed by the Sadrists.

It's worth noting that the same basic dynamic could easily prove to be the Obama administration's saving grace. A huge proportion of the people I talk to seem to feel that following through on promises to withdraw troops will prove incredibly politically problematic for Obama come January/February of 2009. It seems to me that this neglects Iraqi dynamics. All he needs to do is to take advantage of the fact that the American presence in Iraq is wildly unpopular to negotiate some kind of timetable for withdrawal with Iraqi political leaders that will then be jointly announced and celebrated in both countries. The Bush administration has not only consistently battled anti-war political forces in the United States, it's also expended an enormous amount of energy in preventing anti-occupation sentiment in Iraq from coming to dominate Baghdad politics. But an American president who wants our troops to leave will be in line with both U.S. and Iraqi public opinion, and should have little difficulty finding Iraqi politicians willing to embrace his vision. Hawks, meanwhile, would be left looking incredibly foolish condemning a withdrawal schedule jointly approved by the American and Iraqi governments.

Comments

It is also true that the U.S. has been expending enormous resources preventing the natural evolution of Iraqi politics. Now, it may be, as the Bush supporters put it, that the U.S. is preventing civil war, but that's just a pejorative way of saying that the U.S. is preventing "reconciliation". But, the reality of Iraqi oil wealth is an incentive to make the "reconciliation" or the civil war, when it comes, short and to the point.

The one golden opportunity in otherwise bleak set of economic prospects for an Obama Administration hangs on getting out of Iraq, quickly, and letting the Iraqis settle their differences quickly. An Iraqi government that could increase oil exports from 2mbd to 8mbd would impact world oil prices, even as the U.S. enjoys a peace dividend.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 5, 2008 1:07 PM

For now, Obama has to make it very clear to the public and the Iraqi government that, as president, he is not going to be bound by any rushed deals concluded at the last minute between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration as the latter prepares to leave office, and that once in office he will revisit and re-evaluate any such deals in the course of his administration's planned re-assessment of the entire US presence in Iraq. End of story.

Obama leads McCain in the polls. By seizing control of this matter now, Obama will make it clear to the Iraqis that Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, and that they had better shelve any major initiatives or risk-fraught agreements until the new administration takes office. Obama can start acting presidential right now, and effectively start to bring down the curtain on the Bush era in Iraq.

There is no way the Iraqis will go forward with such a politically risky deal if they are told straight out that Bush's plans lack Obama's backing, and that Bush is weak in the US, and in no position to deliver the assurances they would need to move forward.

Obama will have US public backing as well, from independents and moderate conservatives as well as Democrats. Americans understand the principle that lame duck presidents shouldn't ram through major long-term foreign policy commitments in their last few months.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 5, 2008 1:08 PM

1) Your link does not accurately explain Bush's actions or the Basing Agreement. Probably because it uses US sources.

2) What Bush is trying to do is set up a PERMANENT puppet government in Iraq for Big Oil --by coercing the current government to sign a treaty which surrenders Iraq sovereignty.

Bush is exploiting that fact the the current alleged "government" of Iraq would have its throat cut within a month if not for US protection. That's what puppets --vice "democratic governments" are for.

3) See "Secret Plan to Keep Iraq under US Control" at

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

"A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November. "

4) NOTE ALSO:
"The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing."

5) AND:

"The US [Administration] is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord."

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 1:13 PM

The idea that the Sadrists are using the basing issue "to great political benefit" ignores reality. Sadr has been steadily losing popularity in Iraq. And the fact that he was unable to draw massive rallies agains the basing agreement (settling instead for rallies much smaller than what he's hoped for) shows that the great left-wing hope - that Sadr will rise to power in Iraq and kick us out - is becoming increasingly unlikely.

We already know that the left-wing's love affair with Sadr cause them to overestimate Sadr's power. After all, it was just two months ago that Matthew wrote that Sadr had "checkmated" Maliki. Of course, we now know that Matthew was completely wrong about that. Maliki not only beat Sadr in Basra, but Maliki is doing the same in Sadr's stronghold in Baghdad too. The person who is becoming increasingly strong in Iraq is not Sadr, but rather is Maliki. We know the left-wing hates the prospect of a pro-American leader gaining power in Iraq. That's probably what the left-wing fears most: people in Iraq becoming pro-American (it fits perfectly with the anti-Americanism of the left generally, which is of course the basis of the left's isolationism). And so the left continues to hope and pray that anti-American leaders like Sadr rise to power in Iraq. But, unfortunately for the left-wing, hope is not a plan.

This all, of course, is just a continuation of poor judgements about Iraq made by the left (including Matthew). Matthew thought that Sadr would become more powerful as a result of the clashes with Maliki in Basra and Sadr City (Matthew going so far as to proclaim Maliki "checkmated"). Completely wrong. Matthew thought that the surge was a failure. Completely wrong. The history shows that Matthew's (and Obama's) judgement about Iraq have been completely wrong for a while now.

Posted by Al | June 5, 2008 1:13 PM

OT - But Andrea Mitchell just had a mini-gaffe that could blow up -

After pointing out Obama was in Bristol, Virginia - She told Chuck Todd that
was "redneck country."

Aren't rednecks the only ones allowed to use the term "redneck" neutrally?

People will soon liken Mitchell's gaffe to using an N-word equivalent against the only group it's cool to insult.

Andrea knows she made a mistake - she tried to pivot quickly - Chuck Toddd was nun plussed.

Developing ...

Posted by Comment | June 5, 2008 1:15 PM

Maliki would be shredded like a schwarma in a matter of months, if not weeks, if the USG stopped protecting him.

He is probably aware of the tenuous nature of his existence. It's likely he has tried to keep an open ear with his sponsors in Tehran too in case Bush plans to Diem him.

Posted by Comment | June 5, 2008 1:20 PM

"We already know that the left-wing's love affair with Sadr cause them ..."

Is Moktada al-Sadr pro-choice?

Posted by Comment | June 5, 2008 1:24 PM

Sadr has been steadily losing popularity in Iraq.

Right, that's why Maliki and the Iraqi parliament are pushing so hard to either postpone elections or exclude Sadrists from running.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 5, 2008 1:33 PM

Excellent point, Matt, and one I hadn't seen expressed before.

Posted by DTM | June 5, 2008 1:33 PM

This is an insightful post Matt. Every poll I've seen indicates that majorities of both Iraqis and Americans want the US to leave. It's only the neocons in the US and their clients in Iraq who want those big bases and that monster embassy.

Posted by AZmando | June 5, 2008 2:21 PM

Al hyperventilates: "Matthew thought that the surge was a failure. Completely wrong."

March 2007: General David Petraeus, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect."

Febuary 2008: "Iraq Benchmark Report Card: One Year After the Surge the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year."

Thoughts?

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 5, 2008 3:22 PM

Thoughts?

I think "three" is incorrect. While military progress is necessary, as Petraeus points out, it is not sufficient. However, it is necessary, and that aspect of the surge has gone amazingly well. Which is why the left now want to avoid talking talking about the military gains at all costs. But political progress has also gone fairly well, even if not quite as well as the amazing military success. There has been progress on de-Baathification, amnesty, budget, provincial elections. Nobody said that the surge has allowed us to achieve every objective we have in Iraq, but it has been highly successful.

Posted by Al | June 5, 2008 4:37 PM

Nobody said that the surge has allowed us to achieve every objective we have in Iraq...

That's one way of looking at batting .166.

Posted by daveNYC | June 5, 2008 4:53 PM

Woops, forgot to follow up on that "three". I'd say that at least half of the benchmarks have been met, and most of the rest have seen significant progress. The only benchmark for which there's really been no progress is the hydrocarbon law - although the budget for this year makes a de facto allocation of hydrocarbon revenue.

Posted by Al | June 5, 2008 4:53 PM

That's one way of looking at batting .166.

As mentioned, I think we're batting well over .500.

Posted by Al | June 5, 2008 4:56 PM

1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet

2. Enact de-Ba’athification reform. Partial

4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet

5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet

6. Address amnesty. Unmet

8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met

16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met

18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet

7. Disarm militias. Unmet

9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial

10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial

11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet

12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet

13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial

14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met

15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet

3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet

17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial

Here's the list. I'll give you that there's probably a few more 'partials' that could be added, but there's no way you're getting to .500, and the ones that are definitely 'unmet' are the tough ones.

Posted by daveNYC | June 5, 2008 5:09 PM

Establishing neighborhood security in Baghdad is mostly unmet as well.

The only reason the US gets a "met" on that one is that Sadr stood down for the last nine months except for the flareup over Basra and then Baghdad in the last couple months. Also, the Sunnis switched sides temporarily because they couldn't find the Shia and the US at the same time.

Otherwise, nothing would have changed. And nothing fundamentally has changed.

There's absolutely no doubt that the Bush agreement with Iraq is utterly unacceptable to virtually everybody in Iraq except the politicians who are dependent on US support to keep breathing.

It is clearly unacceptable to the senior clerics in Najaf, except that they are concerned that the Shia hold on the government might be threatened if the US pulls out completely. The clerics want "full sovereignty" for the Iraqi government, but they also realize that the US just armed 80,000 or more Shia militias who still intend to take back power in Iraq any way they can.

So it's not clear whether Sistani and the others will block the agreement. I suspect they will, especially if they can get Iran to agree to support the Shia if the Sunnis start up again. I suspect this is the next shoe to drop - Iran gets even more influence in Iraq in exchange for helping force the US out.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 5, 2008 6:04 PM

Ooh, ooh, ooh, I'm on the left.

My judgment is that the chance that a long-term basing agreement passes Iraq's parliament this year is substantially less than the chance that an oil law passes this year, and that both are in the range of the chance of Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic Nominee in 2008.

An objective test of judgment will be clear to all on January 1, 2009 if, as the left suspects, Iraq's parliament is not pro-American enough to pass either of these laws that the United States is putting intense pressure behind.

No need to argue, we'll see after New Year's.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 5, 2008 11:05 PM

Yeah, but Arnold, if the Iran war starts, one of two things will have to happen. Either

1) The Iraqis sign on for basing because otherwise we start bombing them again as well as the Iranians from Kuwait and elsewhere;

or

2) The Iraqis force the US out in conjunction with the Iranians, in which case bases will be moot.

Or, I suppose, both, first 2), then 1) - or vice versa.

I've got seven months left to win my Iran war bet!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 5, 2008 11:50 PM

Re Arnold Evans' comment "if, as the left suspects, Iraq's parliament is not pro-American enough to pass either of these laws that the United States is putting intense pressure behind.'
-----------
I thought Exxon and Chevron were pushing this.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 11:56 PM

Me:
"Iraq Benchmark Report Card: One Year After the Surge the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year.""

AL:
"I'd say that at least half of the benchmarks have been met, and most of the rest have seen significant progress."

daveNYC:
"8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met
16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met
14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met
--------------------------
Thanks, dave.... that was the report where i got the number 3. sorry al.

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 6, 2008 2:02 PM

I tend to agree with Arnold Evans here--let's look at what actually happens. I have less than zero faith in those making absolute statements about what Iraqis want or will do that are based on a few bogus Western opinion polls.

These people have a genuinely representative government following elections with huge turnouts supervised and certified by the UN. They have already demonstrated their independence numerous times, from insisting on elections in the first place, to pulling the plug on Fallujah I, to bouncing candidates favored by the US. It is unwarranted and offensive to people who risked their lives to vote, and are continuing to risk their lives to govern, to suggest with no evidence that they are "puppets".

It's also a bit weird to put so much stock in a scorecard of "benchmarks" created by us which don't necessarily correspond to what Iraqis actually want, or even in the case of items they want, prefer to achieve in their own way and in there own time.

Posted by robert powell | June 6, 2008 4:50 PM