What's Good for the Goose Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Something we already expected, but the Security Framework Agreement will in fact be subject to approval by the Iraqi Government.  Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari seems to have the right idea.

"There isn't any hidden agenda here. This agreement will be transparent, it has to be presented to the representatives of the Iraqi people, the parliament, to ratify it," he said.

"I'm sure there will be some heated political debate when we come to that but I think on the other hand there is a strong will by the mainstream leadership in this country that this is for Iraq's good. We need that continued engagement."

Obviously the Bush Administration doesn't have this point of view since it hasn't even shared a draft of the document with Congress and doesn't think the agreement needs to be ratified. 

The idea that this won't impact the next President's Iraq policy is bogus.  From a technical legal perspective the U.S. can back out at anytime, but that holds true for most international agreements.  It's not really healthy to start a new Administration by going back on previous agreements, especially one that has been publicly debated in the Iraqi Parliament and has gotten this type of publicity.  I'm not worried about a new Democratic President keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq because of this agreement, but I am worried that this will only further raise the costs of leaving, which seems to be part of the Bush Administration's policy.  It's not about establishing a long-term relationship for the next President, it's about making it as difficult as possible for the next President to exit. 

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

The idea that this won't impact the next President's Iraq policy is bogus.

"Bogus" is putting it mildly. It's pretty obvious what the administration is up to here. If you think the surge had a big impact on the Iraq debate in the US, wait to you see what will happen if the Iraqi government passes this agreement, and thereby officially asks the US to stay indefinitely. The number of Members of Congress who are willing to back any kind of strong withdrawal policy will be cut in half overnight. From that point on, all of the remaining debate will be about appropriate troop and spending levels, and the debate about whether to stay in Iraq will go by the boards.

Congress had its chance to do something about Iraq following the 2006 election, when they had a huge popular mandate to get us out. They declined to act. Then came the surge; then came the Sons of Iraq. And next comes this Security Framework Agreement. The window is just about shut.

The struggle is over; the imperialists won.

Well, at least oil prices may begin to drop soon.

[Zathras]

A Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq would be qualitatively different from any other such agreement the United States has ever negotiated. Its approval without the explicit consent of the Senate cannot be considered legally binding on the United States, and is not acceptable under any circumstances. Congress, which has so often shirked its responsibilities in so many ways, needs to make this clear now.

[Dan Kervick]

Congress, which has so often shirked its responsibilities in so many ways, needs to make this clear now.

Congress can do this, Zathras. But if Bush does eventually bring this agreement to Congress after the Iraqis have already signed off on it, he can probably count on Congress's approval.

[Don Bacon]

The choices on the table are (1) the 'Korea model' (maintain combat troops on bases forever) and (2) the 'Vietnam model' (cut and run). The obvious choice for The Leader Of The Free World is (1). As Dan implies, this is not even worthy of discussion any longer. We should instead be discussing more radical ideas on how to cope with a runaway militaristic government which is ramping up new aggressions against various other countries in Operation Enduring War.

As to the (rubber-stamp) Congress the Constitution (remember that?) is instructive: "[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . "

treaty (dictionary): "A formal agreement between two or more states"

[sohbet odaları]

This is a very good site..

sonra bedava chat
burasıda var bedava sohbet