Sign Up for Updates
The Bush Administration Has Agreed to a Timetable. Why Won’t John McCain?
Iraq al-Maliki George Bush iraq McCain MOU Obama SOFA Timeline
Bush Administration Has Questionable Legal Standing for Its Negotiations and Must Ensure Our Troops are Protected
It has become apparent that after years of labeling timetables as surrender, the Bush Administration is poised to agree on a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. This is a position that Democrats and Barack Obama have held for years, and a position that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki reiterated this week when he stated that any agreement between the U.S. and Iraq must have a “specific” timeline that is “not open-ended.”
Yet despite the growing consensus among the U.S. and Iraqi governments and people, John McCain continues to oppose timetables and supports a permanent U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
Meanwhile, despite the welcome progress towards a timetable, the Bush administration still hasn’t gotten the Iraqis to agree to the crucial legal protections for our troops. In fact, the way the agreement is structured will likely leave American troops legally exposed unless and until the agreement is ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. The administration’s secretive negotiating process and refusal to work transparently with Congress raises even more questions about what commitments and concessions have been made.
In the end, any agreement must provide ironclad protection for our troops. It must be conducted transparently. And any broader agreement must include a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. Anything short of this is unacceptable.
The Bush Administration Has Agreed on a Timetable for the Withdrawal of American Forces From Iraq
The Bush administration and Maliki Government have agreed on a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The timetable would lead to the withdrawal of all American combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and leave behind a residual force for training and support. All U.S. forces would be out of Iraqi cities by the middle of 2009. [Washington Post, 8/22/08]
The agreement is very similar to Barack Obama’s plan and is more aggressive in some ways. Obama’s plan calls for the removal of all U.S. combat forces by the middle of 2010 – a year earlier than the Bush administration’s timetable. However, the Maliki-Bush timetable would have all U.S. combat forces out of Iraqi cities by the middle of 2009 -- a more aggressive plan than Obama’s. [NY Times, 8/21/08. Barack Obama]
Prime Minister Maliki has specifically said that there will be no agreement between Iraq and the United States unless there is a “specific” timeline that is “not open-ended.” Speaking with tribal leaders, sheikhs and other prominent figures, al-Maliki said “There is an agreement between both sides that no foreign soldiers will be in Iraq after 2011.” He added that the accord "must be based on a specific deadline for the withdrawal of foreign forces and that it should not be open." [Washington Post, 8/26/08. CNN, 8/25/08]
Despite the wishes of the Iraqi government, the American and Iraqi people, and even the Bush administration, John McCain continues to call for a permanent presence in Iraq and opposes timetables. Instead McCain criticizes timetables, equating them with surrender. He also believes that we should have permanent presence in Iraq stating that he would be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years and comparing the American presence there to the presence in South Korea. [LA Times, 8/23/08. Bloomberg, 8/26/08]
Despite Progress on Timetables, There Are Still Major Flaws in the Way the Bush Administration Is Negotiating the Agreement
American troops are not protected. The key issue of the agreement that is still being negotiated involves giving American troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution. This is a critical issue that prompted negotiations from the American side in the first place. Yet, Prime Minister Maliki took a hard position this week stating that he “will not allow the spilling of the blood of the sons of Iraq by granting open immunity." [CNN, 8/25/08]
Even if an agreement is reached, it may legally fail to protect American troops unless it is ratified by the Iraqi Parliament – a step it appears the Bush Administration may be trying to avoid. “Using a memorandum of understanding could present hurdles illustrated by the fate of an obscure agricultural agreement signed by the United States and Iraq three years ago. The 2005 memorandum promoting agricultural reform and cooperation was not introduced to the Iraqi parliament until January and has not been ratified. Although Bush administration officials contend that a security deal with Iraq would have legal force, the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs acknowledged in an e-mail that the agricultural memorandum is ‘a political understanding’ and ‘an expression of cooperation and good will’ that does not ‘obligate resources.’ …Shown the response, two legal scholars from Yale — Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway — said the State Department has ‘accepted our position that Memorandums of Understanding with Iraq do not have legal force, especially when they have not been ratified by the Iraqi parliament…That means that trading the U.N. mandate for an MOU with Iraq is not only unconstitutional, but there is also a serious risk that it will leave U.S. troops unprotected and exposed.” [Washington Times, 8/22/08]
The Bush administration has failed to bring Congress into the process. If the agreement makes any security guarantees to the Iraqi government then it must be ratified by the Senate. However, even if there are no security guarantees, this agreement is so critical to America’s national security that the Bush administration must work with Congress in a transparent way and share information about the ongoing negotiations. Instead the administration has been secretive and conducted a closed process only further undermining any agreement. [Washington Times, 8/22/08]
Yet despite the growing consensus among the U.S. and Iraqi governments and people, John McCain continues to oppose timetables and supports a permanent U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
Meanwhile, despite the welcome progress towards a timetable, the Bush administration still hasn’t gotten the Iraqis to agree to the crucial legal protections for our troops. In fact, the way the agreement is structured will likely leave American troops legally exposed unless and until the agreement is ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. The administration’s secretive negotiating process and refusal to work transparently with Congress raises even more questions about what commitments and concessions have been made.
In the end, any agreement must provide ironclad protection for our troops. It must be conducted transparently. And any broader agreement must include a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. Anything short of this is unacceptable.
The Bush Administration Has Agreed on a Timetable for the Withdrawal of American Forces From Iraq
The Bush administration and Maliki Government have agreed on a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The timetable would lead to the withdrawal of all American combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and leave behind a residual force for training and support. All U.S. forces would be out of Iraqi cities by the middle of 2009. [Washington Post, 8/22/08]
The agreement is very similar to Barack Obama’s plan and is more aggressive in some ways. Obama’s plan calls for the removal of all U.S. combat forces by the middle of 2010 – a year earlier than the Bush administration’s timetable. However, the Maliki-Bush timetable would have all U.S. combat forces out of Iraqi cities by the middle of 2009 -- a more aggressive plan than Obama’s. [NY Times, 8/21/08. Barack Obama]
Prime Minister Maliki has specifically said that there will be no agreement between Iraq and the United States unless there is a “specific” timeline that is “not open-ended.” Speaking with tribal leaders, sheikhs and other prominent figures, al-Maliki said “There is an agreement between both sides that no foreign soldiers will be in Iraq after 2011.” He added that the accord "must be based on a specific deadline for the withdrawal of foreign forces and that it should not be open." [Washington Post, 8/26/08. CNN, 8/25/08]
Despite the wishes of the Iraqi government, the American and Iraqi people, and even the Bush administration, John McCain continues to call for a permanent presence in Iraq and opposes timetables. Instead McCain criticizes timetables, equating them with surrender. He also believes that we should have permanent presence in Iraq stating that he would be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years and comparing the American presence there to the presence in South Korea. [LA Times, 8/23/08. Bloomberg, 8/26/08]
Despite Progress on Timetables, There Are Still Major Flaws in the Way the Bush Administration Is Negotiating the Agreement
American troops are not protected. The key issue of the agreement that is still being negotiated involves giving American troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution. This is a critical issue that prompted negotiations from the American side in the first place. Yet, Prime Minister Maliki took a hard position this week stating that he “will not allow the spilling of the blood of the sons of Iraq by granting open immunity." [CNN, 8/25/08]
Even if an agreement is reached, it may legally fail to protect American troops unless it is ratified by the Iraqi Parliament – a step it appears the Bush Administration may be trying to avoid. “Using a memorandum of understanding could present hurdles illustrated by the fate of an obscure agricultural agreement signed by the United States and Iraq three years ago. The 2005 memorandum promoting agricultural reform and cooperation was not introduced to the Iraqi parliament until January and has not been ratified. Although Bush administration officials contend that a security deal with Iraq would have legal force, the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs acknowledged in an e-mail that the agricultural memorandum is ‘a political understanding’ and ‘an expression of cooperation and good will’ that does not ‘obligate resources.’ …Shown the response, two legal scholars from Yale — Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway — said the State Department has ‘accepted our position that Memorandums of Understanding with Iraq do not have legal force, especially when they have not been ratified by the Iraqi parliament…That means that trading the U.N. mandate for an MOU with Iraq is not only unconstitutional, but there is also a serious risk that it will leave U.S. troops unprotected and exposed.” [Washington Times, 8/22/08]
The Bush administration has failed to bring Congress into the process. If the agreement makes any security guarantees to the Iraqi government then it must be ratified by the Senate. However, even if there are no security guarantees, this agreement is so critical to America’s national security that the Bush administration must work with Congress in a transparent way and share information about the ongoing negotiations. Instead the administration has been secretive and conducted a closed process only further undermining any agreement. [Washington Times, 8/22/08]