Issues 101
Why None of the Candidates Can Get Us Out of Iraq

Some months ago, after he left the Bush administration, Karl Rove reportedly said [documentation to come], with his mischievous smile, that the next U.S. president would have little say on a much longer presence in Iraq because "we have it locked up" to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for many years to come.

For some time, the statement, reported mainly in only a few blogs, went unnoticed - until April 12, when it exploded into the mainstream news, described by The Washington Post as "a [new] confrontation between Bush and Congress, angering both Democrats (as expected) and Republican (not expected.

"Other than the fact that it violates the Constitution, statute law, common sense and the overwhelming judgment of the American people, this is a sensible thing to do," claimed David Satterfield, chief adviser on Iraq to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, in summarizing the dept of Congressional opposition.

True to Rove's prediction, Bush is claiming he can do this by "executive privileg" and does not need Congressional approval in setting up what some point out are permanent military bases in Iraq. Satterfield, echoing Bill Clinton's famous words that "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", frankly said "permanent bases" mean whatever George Bush decides they are - that there is no "standard" definition of the word "permanent."

Republicans, facing the overwhelming anger of voters, are in revolt.

One confrontation centers on Bush's effort to negotiate a long-term "strategic framework" agreement with Iraq this summer without congressional approval. The U.N. mandate that provides a legal basis for foreign troops operating in Iraq is set to expire at the end of the year, and the administration wants the framework and a related "status of forces" agreement to govern the U.S. engagement in the new year.

But lawmakers from both parties said Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office, and they maintained that an agreement with such enormous consequences should be submitted to the Senate for ratification as a treaty. At a rancorous Senate hearing, Republicans warned that they would join Democrats in fighting the pact.

"You are not going to get this done between now and the election," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's chief adviser on Iraq. "It's not going to happen. . . . Look at reality." If the administration presses ahead, Voinovich and others said, it would hand Democrats a presidential campaign issue on a platter, allowing them to claim that Bush seeks to tie the hands of the next president.

"You speak on behalf of this administration, whose views are not shared by two of the three potential next presidents," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "This is folly. This is a serious, serious mistake."

Satterfield insisted that the framework pact would not commit the United States to permanent bases or specific troop levels, or even to defend Iraq. But the administration has only vaguely outlined what the commitment would be.

A statement signed by Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in December said the agreement would provide "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq "to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace."

Satterfield's assurance that that language does not constitute a "binding guarantee" on the United States' part was ridiculed on both sides of the aisle. "Words have meaning," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). "It raises real flags for all of us."

Republicans were less insistent on ratification but demanded congressional involvement. Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.) said there should be "a very clear understanding that we're not going to go forward with a security arrangement unless and until there is a full buy-in from this body. Doesn't have to be a formal treaty, but I just think there has to be that recognition. Otherwise, we're going to proceed down a very bitter, partisan, political divide."

Satterfield emerged from the hearing sobered by the bipartisan criticism. "It was very difficult to discern the difference" between Republicans and Democrats, he acknowledged. He jokingly summarized lawmakers' views this way: "Other than the fact that it violates the Constitution, statute law, common sense and the overwhelming judgment of the American people, this is a sensible thing to do."

With violence levels in Iraq down since last year, Democrats are increasingly making an economic case against the war, blaming it in part for the downturn at home. Democratic leaders plan to add as much as $30 billion for road and bridge construction, unemployment benefits and other domestic spending to the $108 billion war-funding measure Bush has requested.

"Bush Backs Petraeus on Indefinite Suspension of Troop Pullout in Iraq"
by Peter Baker & Karen DeYoung,
The Washington Post, Apr. 12, 2008

David Satterfield, the State Department's Iraq coordinator, above, tells Congress that "permanent" means whatever President Bush says it is. (By Dennis Cook -- Associated Press)

"What Basis for 'Permanent' Bases?" - Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2008

The Bush administration has assured Congress that it does not seek to establish "permanent" U.S. military bases in Iraq. But an exchange yesterday among Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), State Department Iraq coordinator David Satterfield and Assistant Defense Secretary Mary Beth Long at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing suggests that permanence lies in the mind of the beholder:

Webb: What is a permanent base?

Satterfield: Senator, the administration has made quite clear that we are not seeking permanent bases in Iraq. . . .

Webb: Right. But what is a permanent base? Are our bases in Japan permanent bases?

Long: I have looked into this. As far as the department is concerned, we don't have a worldwide or even a department-wide definition of permanent bases. I believe those are, by and large, determined on a case-by-case basis. . . .

Webb: Well, I understand that. But basically my point is it's sort of a dead word. It doesn't really mean anything.

Long: Yes, Senator, you're completely right. It doesn't. . . .

Webb: We've had bases in Korea since 1953, anyway, and I would be hard-pressed to say they're permanent. How long is permanent? We have bases in Japan under a security agreement, but we are relocating a lot of those to Guam, so I wouldn't say that they are permanent. So to say that these won't be permanent bases really doesn't go to the question of what they will be. It goes to the question of what they won't be. And what we're saying they won't be is a dead word.

Long: Senator, you're exactly right. I think most lawyers . . . would say that the word "permanent" probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term.

"U.S., Iraq Negotiating Security Agreements" - Washington Post, Apr. 12, 20

The Bush administration is negotiating two accords with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to replace the U.N. mandate for a multinational military presence there that expires at the end of this year.

The first is a "status of forces agreement," or SOFA, defining and protecting the legal status of U.S. military personnel and property in Iraq. Negotiated and signed under executive authority, it is a binding commitment but does not require congressional approval. (emphasis added)

Among aspects unique to the proposed SOFA, Senate Democrats said, are that it would allow U.S. forces to unilaterally initiate military operations and to detain Iraqis, and would immunize civilian U.S. contractors from prosecution in Iraq.

The second agreement is a long-term "strategic framework" the administration has said will establish "cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields." A "statement of principles" that Bush and Maliki signed in December said the framework, which they plan to sign by July 31 to take effect Jan. 1, included "security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace."

Congressional Democrats have said that the agreement, as outlined by the administration, constitutes a defense treaty commitment requiring Senate ratification. The administration has said it is "nonbinding," will not include language on specific troop numbers or authorize permanent bases, and does not commit the United States to defend Iraq. It also asserts that the agreement is within Bush's executive authority.

In a meeting yesterday with Washington Post editors and reporters, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker described the framework as a "political document" and said Congress will be kept fully briefed on the negotiations. "We're hopeful that as it moves along, it will become apparent that both hands are above the table on this," Crocker said.

David M. Satterfield, the State Department's lead official on Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the agreement would not limit the options of a future U.S. administration, because either side could cancel it at any time.

Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) questioned whether the United States should be negotiating agreements it may not keep. "Big nations can't make assurances, whether legally binding or not, without having consequences when they don't fulfill that obligation," Biden said.

Note that in the cases of both "agreements", Bush is exerting "executive privilege" and claims he does not need Congress' approval, though his Iraqi ambassador, Ryan Crocker, says Congress "will be kept fully briefed."

"Iraq Security Agreement Proves to Be Nettlesome"

The Bush administration intends to negotiate a long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, but has said it will not need Senate approval because it will not be providing security commitments to Iraq as part of a formal treaty. Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) probed this issue in a pointed exchange with David Satterfield, the State Department's Iraq coordinator, at a House hearing yesterday.

Ackerman: Is there any way in the world that [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] thinks that we are going to defend Iraq if Iraq is attacked?

Satterfield: Mr. Chairman, the secretary of defense, secretary of state, the president, the vice president in all of their conversations with the prime minister and other senior Iraqi officials have been quite clear on what our intent is in Iraq, what our obligations are in Iraq and what they are not. I do not believe such a potential misunderstanding exists.

Ackerman: Has this been explicitly explained to him that, if Iraq is attacked, that we have no obligation to enter into any combat missions?

Satterfield: The secretary of defense has made very clear exactly those points.

Ackerman: And Mr. Maliki is satisfied with that assurance or non-assurance or lack of assurance? . . .

Satterfield: Mr. Chairman, Prime Minister Maliki is strongly supportive, as we understand, for the initiation of negotiations about to begin on exactly the basis which I have described to you.

Ackerman: What will happen if Iraq is attacked?

Satterfield: Mr. Chairman, as would be the case of an attack on any friend and partner of the United States, the administration would have to consider, in consultation with the Congress, what would be the best measures to take in defense of United States' interests in such an eventuality.

Ackerman: If Iraq is attacked, are you stating uncategorically that the administration will take no action . . . until an appropriate course of action is decided, in consultation with the Congress?

Satterfield: Mr. Chairman, the administration will act as any administration would act in defense of U.S. interests.

Ackerman: I'm afraid of that.

Already, diplomats are preparing to move into a huge structure the size of the Vatican state.

"Diplomats to move into new U.S. Embassy

U.S. diplomats will begin moving into the mammoth, heavily fortified embassy in Baghdad next month after long delays in the $736 million project -- and not a moment too soon. Increasing rocket attacks on the Green Zone have killed four Americans in recent weeks, and embassy staff members are wearing body armor and ducking for cover.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said Friday that construction is complete at the Vatican-sized compound and that although not all buildings have yet been certified for final occupancy, transition to the facility should start at the end of May. Diplomats are now housed in a less-protected Saddam Hussein-era palace.

The new embassy will be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, with fortified working space for 1,000 people and living quarters for several hundred on 104 acres.

But the project has been beset by construction, logistical and security hitches that caused major delays beyond its planned September opening and angered some lawmakers.

In October, the department conceded that a host of problems, including major malfunctions in the complex's physical plant, including electrical and water distribution systems, would push back the embassy opening at least until this spring.

Some of those problems have since recurred.

Some of the deficiencies have been blamed on shoddy work by the company hired to build the project, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Co., for $592 million. Changes to the original design have pushed the cost up by $144 million.

REFERENCES:

"What Basis for 'Permanent' Bases?" - Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2008

"Bush Backs Petraeus on Indefinite Suspension of Troop Pullout in Iraq" - Washington Post, Apr. 12, 2008

"U.S., Iraq Negotiating Security Agreements" - Washington Post, Apr. 12, 2008

"Diplomats to move into new U.S. Embassy" - Dallas Star-Telegram/AP, Apr. 12, 2008

"Iraq Security Agreement Proves to Be Nettlesome" - Washington Post, Mar. 5, 2008