US Troops Leaving Iraqi Cities

[jmm99]

where lives are lost each day, the twists and turns of the Iraqi SOFA would be a humorous farce.

So, we find that the adminisrtration will not release the English version to Congress (and, which is the same thing, to the press). That version is now "sensitive but unclassified", as McClatchy notes here:

Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008
U.S. staying silent on its view of Iraq pact until after vote
By Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday — just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote.

These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.

Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes. ....
....
Among the areas of dispute are:

Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops or military contractors who kill Iraqis on operations. The agreement calls for Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops according to court procedures that have yet to be worked out. Those negotiations, administration officials have argued, could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A provision that bars the U.S. from launching military operations into neighboring countries from Iraqi territory. Administration officials argue they could circumvent that in some cases, such as pursuing groups that launch strikes on U.S. targets from Syria or Iran, by citing another provision that allows each party to retain the right of self-defense. One official expressed concern that "if Iran gets wind that we think there's a loophole there," Tehran might renew its opposition to the agreement.

A provision that appears to require the U.S. to notify Iraqi officials in advance of any planned military operations and to seek Iraqi approval for them, which some U.S. military officials find especially troubling, although Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, Army Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, and Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, all have endorsed it.

"Telling the Iraqis in advance would be an invitation to an ambush," said one U.S. official, who said the Iraqi government and security forces are "thoroughly penetrated by the insurgents, the Iranians, the Sadrists (followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr) and ordinary folks who just sell scraps of intelligence."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/56474.html

But, from the same article, you can find not only a translation of the Arabic version, but the official English version,

McClatchy's Baghdad bureau last week produced an unofficial English translation of the agreement based on the Arabic text. McClatchy on Tuesday also obtained an official English version.

which is here:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/...filiate.91.pdf

Haven't done a word for word, but this looks like the same version as one could find by Googling into a NY Times webpage, which we reported 6 days ago in the adjacent Iraq SOFA Draft thread (post # 8).

-------------------------------------
Progress on the Iraqi approval process has been deferred until tomorrow, according to this:

Iraq Delays Vote on Security Pact
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: November 26, 2008

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s Parliament has delayed by at least 24 hours a vote on a security agreement with the United States as some Parliamentarians worked to finalize a political reform package to constrain the power of the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that would be voted on at the same time as the agreement....
.....
But the agreement’s final passage through Parliament is now being held up by the negotiations over the political reforms that the political blocs have agreed will accompany the pact. Those discussions mean the final agreement on the security pact may now drag on for days or even weeks, possibly closer to the final end-of-year deadline when the current United Nations resolution governing the foreign military presence expires.
....
The vote on the security agreement had already been postponed from Monday, and intensive negotiations continued Tuesday and Wednesday as the agreement’s proponents tried to corral enough votes for approval by a significant majority of Parliament.

If the pact fails to win approval, the United States military will have no legal basis to continue operations in Iraq after Dec. 31, when the United Nations resolution governing the foreign military presence ends.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/wo...ll&oref=slogin

What this boils down to is that the Sunnis want some piece of the pie (or perhaps, a continued US presence to protect them). Since the Sunni VP can veto the agreement even if parliament approves it, some sort of deal seems likely with the Sunnis - if such a deal is even possible.

[jmm99]

There are a host of reports on this (with many more to follow). Here are two:

Iraq Approves Long-Debated U.S. Security Pact
By Rania Abouzeid / Baghdad Thursday, Nov. 27, 2008

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Thursday finally got the broad consensus he sought on the Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S. — 149 of the 198 lawmakers present in the 275-member National Assembly gave their support to a deal that allows American forces to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011. But Iraq's legislators also put the prime minister on notice: "We want to tell Maliki that we are building a new democracy, and that we're not ready anymore to let the power be in one man's hands, no matter who he is," said Abdel-Bari al-Zebari, a Kurdish lawmaker.

The wide parliamentary approval for the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) opens the final chapter of U.S military involvement in Iraq, setting a firm deadline for withdrawal. The vote, and the divisive deliberations leading up to it, may also mark the beginning of a new season of political conflict in Baghdad, as politicians seek to redistribute power away from the increasingly autocratic prime minister and towards the president and the parliament.
.....
Maliki's Shi'ite and Kurdish allies backed the pact, which requires that U.S troops redeploy out of Iraqi towns and cities to bases in the countryside by June of next year, and completely withdraw by the end of 2011. The Sunni Tawafuk bloc also gave it the nod, after securing concessions on its demands for an amnesty for detainees in U.S custody, and for the holding of a referendum on the security pact next July. A 'no' vote in that referendum could torpedo the deal, and give Washington one year's notice to leave, effectively bringing forward the U.S withdrawal date to the middle of 2010. ...

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...862660,00.html

Mission Accomplished: Iraq Parliament approves SOFA
November 27, 9:59 AM

Iraq's Parliament, by a vote of 149-49, approved the status of forces agreement (SOFA) dictating the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. The agreement was ratified a week ago by Prime Minister Nouri al-Mailki's cabinet, and is now guaranteed to be approved by Iraq's presidential council.

As noted previously, one of the concessions to resistant Sunni lawmakers was an agreement the pact be voted on in a national referendum occurring no later than July 30, 2009. Should the Iraqi voters reject the SOFA, the United States would be required to have all troops out of Iraq within one year, or July 30, 2010.

In other words, essentially the same timetable that Barack Obama had argued for throughout the presidential election campaign.

http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progre...?comments=true

---------------------------------------
References to the 2009 referendum pertain to this:

Iraq to hold referendum on US troops pact
1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AFP) — Iraq plans to hold a July referendum on a controversial military pact allowing US troops to remain for another three years that parliament is expected to adopt on Thursday in a delayed vote.

"It is not only the Iraqi parliament that has a role in overseeing this agreement , but the Iraqi people," the country's top negotiator Muwafaq al-Rubaie told Al-Arabiya television, adding that the referendum would be on July 30.

Rubaie, who also serves as Iraq's national security advisor, spoke to the Dubai-based network shortly after parliament delayed a vote on the pact until Thursday amid a flurry of last-minute talks.

He later insisted that Washington would have to accept the decision to hold the referendum, telling AFP that "it is an Iraqi issue and the Americans have to understand our requirements." ....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...orB-y8C1cwLe6Q

Various other deals were cracked with the Sunnis, who seem reluctantly on board.

Technically, there is one last step in Iraqi ratification - approval by the presidential troika, including the Sunni VP. We'll see what kind of deal (has been) (will be) struck there.

Whether this (is) (will be) "Mission Accomplished" will be something for each person here at SWC to decide for himself or herself.

Happy Turkey Day to all - God with and stay safe.

[Surferbeetle]

After many, many hours of chai and cigarettes, and perhaps an excellent full course meal, things would to get to a point were everybody would seem to be more or less satisfied. The next day I would bump into one of the participants who advise that just one more small change would be needed to get things truly finalized....

The negotiation never ends.

[Ken White]

in several nations there...

[jmm99]

Little fuss and muss to this final step in the process.

Presidency Council Ratifies U.S.-Iraq Security Pact
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2008 – The new U.S.-Iraq security pact that was approved by Iraqi lawmakers Nov. 27 was ratified by Iraq’s Presidency Council today, senior U.S. officials said.

The two-part security pact consists of a strategic framework agreement that establishes the foundation of a long-term bilateral relationship between the United States and Iraq, as well as a status-of-forces agreement that stipulates how U.S. forces are affected by Iraqi laws.

Both agreements will take effect Jan. 1, following the exchange of diplomatic notes. The agreements replace a United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq that’s slated to expire Dec. 31.

“We welcome today’s ratification by Iraqi’s Presidency Council of the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement,” U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said in a joint statement issued today.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=52192

[jmm99]

New orders for US troops in Iraq after landmark pact
Fri Dec 5, 6:27 am ET

BAGHDAD (AFP) – The top US military commander in Iraq on Friday issued new orders to troops after the Iraqi government approved a landmark military pact that will give it increased control over their operations.

The wide-ranging accord -- which will require all US troops to leave the country by the end of 2011 -- won final approval from Iraq's presidential council on Thursday after nearly a year of intense negotiations.

"US forces will continue to be authorised to engage in combat operations," General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, wrote in a letter to the troops.

"However, under the terms of the new agreement, we will coordinate and execute those operations with the approval of the (Iraqi government), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi security forces."

The pact -- which will take effect when the troops' UN mandate expires at the end of the month -- will grant Iraq veto power over virtually all US operations.

"We will continue to focus on combating Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, but we must do so with respect for the Iraqi constitution and laws," Odierno wrote.

"But there will not be any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves and the force," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081205...iraqusmilitary

[jcustis]

On the annviersary of my old battalion's biggest scrape during March 2003, my former batlion commander reaches out to his former commanders and executive officer, and we catch up on events and careers.

This year, the round of emails caught me in N. Iraq, serving on a endgame deployment of sorts, which stands in stark contrast to the days I remember from the invasion. I thought my reply was worth sharing here as well:

I think you will all enjoy knowing what transpired the other day, just a couple days before the anniversary. The Iraqi brigade that owns the majority of this battlespace asked us to participate in an op involving some 250 jundi, in pursuit of one of the local HVIs for both our TF and the brigade. This same brigade has conducted similar operations recently, and it all indicates a very aggressive, talented, and capable brigadier general. He wants the support of air coverage, and our companies for outer cordons and screen lines, but it is always his men who go through the door when it comes to conducting the actual searches of any dwellings/villages. It's true that they do it "good enough" for Iraqi standards, but they do it fairly well.

In preparation for this particular operation, the BG brought the jundi to our expeditionary airfield in a column of HMMWVs, Ford F250s, 5-ton cargo trucks, and miscellaneous support vehicles. They even had their own refueler and 5-ton wrecker of sorts. We fed the jundi while the officers conducted final planning with staff, and so in my capacity as the XO, I was at the point of friction, trying to corral 200+ Iraqi soldiers into a chow line in the crisp morning air. They looked like the typical rag-tag bunch sporting different uniforms, with some wearing kneepads and headlamps as some sort of fashion accessory, but I took note of a few important things. First, I watched as a junior officer approached the line of men queued to be served. He had a couple NCOs with him, and instead of butting in line, he stood patiently and waited until his men had something to eat before he went through the line.

The other notable thing I saw happened once the company commanders returned to their troops. The BG issued final orders, and started directing the actions of men and machine. I could see an officer issuing orders to his men, who were all kneeling in a school circle in front of him, listening rather intently. This guy was motivated, and even though I couldn't tell what he was saying, his gestures were universal...watch your sector...check geometry of fires...report what you know, then what you think. At the end of his little huddle, he pumped his fist and the men all replied with what could be called their equivalent of oohrah, before they broke formation and mounted their vehicles so that they could hit SP on time.

I think it's safe to say that we have all known some sorrow at the lost of a Marine we knew by name since we crossed the berm at what seems like such a long time ago. Our country's precious treasure poured a lot of blood into the country, and I was able to witness the result of their sacrifice. Our men did not die in vain.

[jmm99]

There is one more step in the SOFA process. Here is its timeline.

Iraq presidency to review US pact in two weeks
Fri Nov 28, 5:10 am ET

BAGHDAD (AFP) – Iraq's landmark security pact with the United States will be sent to the presidential council for a final review following its ratification by the Iraqi parliament, an official said on Friday.

"Parliament is due to submit the law on Sunday to the presidential council which has 10 days to ratify or reject it, presidential office spokesman Nassir al-Ani said, a day after lawmakers gave their backing to the controversial accord.

"If it has no reaction, it is considered adopted," he said. "If the presidential council rejects it, the pact must go back to parliament." ....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081128...iraqusmilitary