Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Editorial: Bush Negotiations With Iraq

Leave it for the next president

The last thing most Americans want to see is the Bush administration enter into a binding agreement that defines this country's future relationship with Iraq.

The U.S. economy and the administration's inept handling of the Iraq war have the public so upset that the Republican Party is worried it will lose not only the presidency, but many seats in Congress.

Yet, President Bush unblinkingly continues talks with Baghdad to enter into what for all intents and purposes is a treaty with Iraq. He dare not call it a

treaty

, though, because that requires congressional approval.

There are two documents involved. One, a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA), mainly applies to the military and traditionally has not needed the approval of Congress. About 100 SOFAs are in effect now, with countries such as Japan.

But the second document, a "framework" agreement, is different. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November signed a preliminary framework called the "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship Between the Republic of Iraq and the U.S."

This "bilateral security" agreement reportedly reads like a treaty and commits the United States to assist Iraq if it is attacked by outside forces. Could this be the document that paves the way for U.S. military operations against Iran?

Some in Congress would like to know more, but they are being stonewalled by Bush aides, who have argued that in authorizing a military response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and authorizing the Iraq war in 2002, Congress provided all the approval the administration needed to negotiate a security pact with Iraq now.

While Congress is being denied a role with either the long-term pact or the SOFA, the Iraqi parliament has the details and has not found all to its liking. Iraqis have balked at SOFA provisions granting legal immunity to U.S. civilian contractors, and at the number of U.S. military bases that will remain in Iraq.

Seeing the Bush administration negotiate such terms doesn't sit right with many Americans. It seems to undercut whatever moves with Iraq the next president will want to make after Bush leaves office.

The administration claims the next president won't be handcuffed. But if the pacts aren't binding, why have them? Are they to be treated like those Wild West treaties with Native Americans that weren't worth the ink used to sign them?

Even if the agreements are for only one to two years, that would place limits on the next president.

The administration doesn't seem to care about that, or about how the public sees its intransigence. More and more Americans believe it was such stubborness by Bush, aimed at transforming the Middle East, that led to the Iraq war.

Others are convinced the war was all about oil. They see confirmation of their suspicions in last week's news that Iraq is giving no-bid contracts to Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP. The pacts are only to continue providing technical assistance in Iraq's oil fields. But to those who distrust Bush, it looks like the beginning of what he was up to all along.