One of the key takeaways from my just-completed trip to Iraq is that an Iraqi-American security accord is likely to be completed before the end of the year. Of course, such predictions have been heard before. In fact ,the Bush administration was aiming to complete work on an agreement by July, only to be stopped short by vehement Iraqi demands for more limitations on U.S. forces. The pressure is now on to strike a deal before the end of the year when existing authority for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, provided by a United Nations Security Council resolution, will expire.
There has already been broad agreement on the contours of a deal which would call for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraqi cities by next June and the entire country by the end of 2011, provided that security conditions continue to improve. The last remaining hold-up has been over Iraqi demands that American troops be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction. This is a particularly sore point with the Iraqi leaders because they do not want to face accusations that they are ceding their sovereignty to a foreign occupier-something that occurred in the 1930’s, when British troops were allowed to maintain a quasi-colonial presence even after Iraq had won formal independence. From the American standpoint, however, this is an issue with little room for compromise: commanders have to safeguard their troops and not risk subjecting them to politically trumped-up charges in an Iraqi courtroom.
But there is room for some creative wording to bridge the differences. Iraqis are, in fact, only insisting that U.S. troops be subject to their jurisdiction when off duty; actions performed in the line of duty still will enjoy immunity under Iraqi law. Since U.S. troops pretty much never go off their bases except in the line of duty, this would hardly seem an insuperable obstacle.
American officials say that, after making nationalist noises this summer, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now showing a greater willingness to compromise on such sensitive issues because he realizes that he needs U.S. troops for the foreseeable future. As evidence they point to this interview which he recently gave to the Associated Press. Among his comments:
If we don’t reach [any type of] agreement by the 1st of January 2009, the [international] troops will have to remain in their bases and then there should be a plan for a quick withdrawal. This would not be in the interests of Iraq nor in the interests of the United States. Our need for coalition forces is decreasing – but it still exists.
That’s a stark contrast to the tone he struck in his infamous interview with Der Spiegel this summer in which he called for U.S. troops to leave “as soon as possible” and seemed to endorse Obama’s 16-month timeline.
Under the accord as it stands now, the “time horizon” for withdrawal would be considerably longer than the one Obama has called for, and–more importantly–it would be subject to modifications based on the evolving situation. That could mean slowing down withdrawals or speeding them up. What it doesn’t mean is sticking to a timetable crafted for domestic political consumption–in either country.
