last weekend, i flip-flopped on my earlier prediction that the bush administration would not get a status of forces agreement with iraq. as i explained in that post, i simply didn't expect the bush administration to cross so many of its own red lines just to get an agreement. what originally seemed like an irreconcilable situation suddenly seemed reconcilable, mostly because the bush administration gave in on things like a timetable for withdrawal of u.s. forces and lifting legal immunity for american contractors and (in some situations) u.s. soldiers. and so while i originally predicted there would be no SOFA, on saturday i decided that a SOFA was looking pretty likely after all.
but now i'm flipping back to my original prediction. all week figures in iraq have solidified their opposition to the pact, even with all of bush's concessions. yes, they want the same timetable, but without the weasel words that would let the u.s. stay beyond the withdrawal deadline. and they want u.s. troops to be subject to iraqi jurisdiction in more circumstances than the administration has agreed. the iraqis are making it clear that bush's compromises didn't go far enough.
which made me wonder if bush would just compromise more. as i said on saturday i don't completely understand why bush wants a SOFA so badly. the proposal doesn't contain any promise by the u.s. to protect iraq's security. the administration left that out to avoid having it considered a "treaty" under u.s. law. a treaty has to be ratified by congress, something that would be pretty hard to get before december 31st, especially before the end of the year. so instead, the administration is making it an executive agreement, which is not subject to congressional ratification. but that also means that it won't have as strong a force of law as a real treaty would. the next president wouldn't have to follow it if he doesn't want to. while politically it may seem like a SOFA committed the next administration to continue bush's policies, really it wouldn't. the agreement would do nothing to stop a president obama from bringing u.s. forces home quicker than the timetable in the agreement or a president mccain from disregarding the timetable entirely (although that decision would probably have serious political consequences in iraq).
so again, why has bush been trying so hard to get an agreement? i'm beginning to think it's because bush didn't think he could get an extension of the UN mandate for u.s. forces to stay in iraq. that mandate expires on december 31, 2008. because relations with russia are so bad, i think the administration thought that country might veto any extension. that would explain why bush was conceding so many points that he otherwise wouldn't be able to swallow. the withdrawal timetable and immunity issues are going to be the next president's problem, not his. he's just trying to keep u.s. forces in iraq for the rest of his term, that is the first 20 days of 2009. if i'm right, bush has a really bizarre way of thinking about his legacy--as if a mess in iraq in 2009 because of an agreement that he signed wouldn't be attributed to him by history. but i think that's the only explanation for his actions that make sense.
in any case, russia has now made it clear that it won't veto an extension of the UN mandate. so now the bush administration doesn't need a SOFA to keep u.s. troops there until january 20, 2009. (such an extension without iraqi parliamentary approval would violate the iraqi constitution. but the bush administration ignored that last year. it would have no problem ignoring it again this year). give russia's agreement, i'm now flipping back to my original prediction that there will be no SOFA with iraq by the end of the year.
