Iraqi blogger Omar Fadhil has an excellent article he has posted today in the Long War Journal (by the way anyone serious about understanding the global war on terror should be reading this site) that deals with the Status of Forces Agreement being worked out between the US and Iraq:

The signing of a long-term security agreement between the US and Iraq has been contentiously debated within Iraq. The status of forces agreement (or SOFA) is a proposed deal between the US and Iraq that is designed to establish the principles for a continued US military presence in Iraq beyond the expiration of the UN mandate at the end of 2008. Among the most debated points in the deal are the number and location of US bases, the legal status of US troops and private contractors, and the jurisdictions and freedom of US military to carry out counterterrorism operations and arrests without consulting the Iraqi government. [Long War Journal]

These SOFA talks are extremely critical to iron out the major issues such as US military bases along with the legal status of US troops. Besides working out these issues it will be important to educate the Iraqi population on what the SOFA really means. The US will undoubtedly only sign a SOFA that gives US troops immunity from Iraqi courts for crimes committed on duty just like it has with all its other SOFA’s with other nations that host US troops.

At some point a SOFA jurisdiction issue will come up in regards to a crime committed by a US soldier while on duty that will be tried in a US court martial. It is important that the Iraqi public is educated on why this is so because Iraqi political opportunists just like in Korea will try to demagogue the issue for their own political advantage.

Even though the US will definitely argue for Iraqi criminal immunity for crimes committed on duty, I also would not be surprised if the US negotiators are arguing for crimes committed while off duty to also be free from Iraqi prosecution because of the fledgling state of the Iraqi courts. When the US hands over soldiers for criminal prosecutions in foreign courts it is expected that certain legal rights will respected to ensure a fair trial. We have seen in Korea this isn’t always possible but in any SOFA with Iraq it should be made clear what level the Iraqi legal system needs to achieve before soldiers are handed over.

The other issue is that as of now soldiers are never officially off duty in Iraq because of their deployed status as well as the fact soldiers are not allowed to go off post on their free time anyway to get into any trouble. The few incidents that have happened are from soldiers going off post committing crimes while on duty. The US ought to explore having a clause that gives up jurisdiction on certain heinous cases such as with the brutal rape and murder case by a group of thugs in the 101^st Airborne a few years back, but as the Marine Haditha case has shown, even cases that appear heinous on the surface because of the sensational and irresponsible media coverage are actually fraudulent charges as demonstrated by the acquittal of the Marines charged in the so called “massacre”.

The legal status of contractors is another sticky issue though I have little sympathy for a SOFA giving blanket protections to civilian Blackwater contractors, but other contractors that do work on US bases such as AAFES personnel should be protected under any SOFA signed between the US and Iraq. I think this issue will be fairly easy to iron out.

The US base issue is another issue I think will be actually easier to iron out then it appears. Political opponents to the US presence in Iraq to include strategic security opponents such as Iran have been demagogueing this issue quite well. The Iranians obviously want the US out of Iraq in order to complete their hegemony over the country.

Seeing newspapers write things such as this about SOFA talks is quite humorous:

Details of the agreement the Bush gang is cooking up with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Cockburn noted, “are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq,” where government officials “fear that the accord, under which U.S. troops would occupy permanent bases [and be able to] conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, [would] destabilize Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.” The Independent pointed out that “Bush wants to push [the proposed agreement] through by the end of next month so [that] he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. [SF Gate]

The US has SOFA agreements with dozens of countries and one needs to be signed with Iraq because the UN mandate for international forces in Iraq ends this year. Some type of legal framework has to be worked out to legalize the status of US forces in the country. This is actually a sign of progress in Iraq as the government is seeking to normalize relations with US troops in its country just like other countries that have US troops there have done.

The claims that US is trying build all these permanent bases because of the SOFA discussions are quite humorous and intellectually dishonest as usual from the usual suspects. The SOFA discussions are talking about maintaining 58 bases for US troops in Iraq. What the political opponents are not telling you is that 54 of theses bases are joint Iraqi-US bases that house US soldiers working on Military Transition Teams (MiTT) that conduct joint operations and are responsible for training the Iraqi Army. They are classified as “US bases” in the SOFA talks in order to ensure that those soldiers there fall underneath the SOFA provisions. Only 4 of the 58 are actual bases intended to have a primarily heavy US troop presence which are the bases currently located at Tallil, Taji, Balad, and Al Asad. These bases are all major airfields spread across the country to support US military units operating from the joint bases in those areas. This plan would actually be a big reduction in the US military footprint of bases in Iraq which is a good thing. The intellectual dishonesty of the usual suspects such as the San Francisco media and the British Independent is quite pathetic.

Omar though does a good job laying out the motivations of the political opponents in Iraq on this issue but this whole issue is an interesting thing to see play out for people familiar with the same type of political demagoguery seen over the years with the SOFA the US has signed with South Korea. I think the US ambassador to Iraq summed up the SOFA talks perfectly:

“I am very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis and to anyone who asks that we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly by just intending to stay there indefinitely,” he added.

U.S. forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. mandate that expires at the end of 2008. Baghdad does not want that mandate extended, so the two governments have agreed to set guidelines to enable U.S. forces to remain beyond the end of this year.

Crocker said a tentative date of end-July had been set to wrap up negotiations on the long-term pact — well before the next U.S. president is elected on Nov. 4.

“My focus on this is more on getting it done right than getting it done quick,” he added. [Reuters]

The good thing about this is that Iraqi politicians are using the political process to raise their objections instead of bombs which is always a good thing and a sign of a slowly maturing democracy, not that the usual suspects care.

Popularity: 2%