U.S. - Iraq pact lets U.S. stay till 2011

by Frank James

So what exactly is in the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA between the U.S. and iraq which was approved by the Iraqi cabinet yesterday and signed by U.S. and Iraqi representatives today? The answer is we're not exactly sure.

We know the agreement would allow U.S. troops to stay until 2011 and that it requires U.S. troops to return to their bases by June 30.

We also know the agreement grants protection to U.S. service members in Iraq accused of crimes against Iraqis from prosecution in the Iraqi court systems. But there appear to be some important details that aren't yet widely known.

It would allow the trial by Iraqi courts of off-duty and off base U.S. troops and contractors charged with crimes against Iraqis.

There are actually two agreements, the SOFA and the Strategic Framework Agreement.

According to an article on the Council of Foreign Relations website:

"A draft of that (SOFA) agreement (PDF) from October 2008 shows significant concessions from the U.S. side. For instance, the Bush administration agreed to a total withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. The agreement would also place additional restrictions on how U.S. troops conducted missions, and require a pullout from Iraqi urban areas by July 2009.

Details of the second accord under discussion are more opaque. Referred to as a "strategic framework agreement," the measure would broadly address issues not covered by the SOFA, including those outlined in a "declaration of principles" document signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November 2007. Among these issues: the U.S. role in defending Iraq from internal and external threats; U.S. support of political reconciliation; and U.S. efforts to confront terrorist groups. Critics of the measures contend the Bush administration aims to tie the hands of the next president and usurp Iraqi sovereignty, charges the White House vehemently disputes.

But it was clear that even U.S experts who follow these matters didn't know for sure what was in the second agreement.

Another excerpt from the council's article:

Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle East affairs at the Congressional Research Service, says he believes the agreement may incorporate some of the more contentious security proposals, such as authorization for the use of force, contractor immunity, and perhaps approval for the United States to continue detaining prisoners. Yale's Hathaway, meanwhile, says public statements by administration officials have led her to believe contentious security details will remain part of the negotiated SOFA. The strategic framework "basically appears to be everything else" outlined in the November 2007 declaration of principles, she says.

So we have two agreements with Iraq which both nations have signed but U.S. experts are unsure of what's in them exactly.

Some reporting has suggested that approval by the Iraqi cabinet of the agreements makes approval by the Iraqi parliament a foregone conclusion. But there is evidently some resistance to the agreements in Iraq.

But there appears to be resistance to the pact in some quarters in Iraq, including from Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who hasn't been heard from in a while.

Mysteries surrounding SOFAs aren't uncommon. As the CFR article also reports:

Historically, the status-of-forces agreement is a legal framework that defines how foreign militaries operate in a host country. Typically established by executive agreement, there is no uniform or standard format for the document, which can vary in length and specificity. The SOFA drafted in 2002 between the United States and East Timor, for instance, was less than three pages long. The 1966 SOFA with South Korea, by contrast, tops 150 pages and includes over thirty annexes. But while most SOFAs are publicly available, others remain classified; U.S. officials themselves disagree on how many are in effect. During congressional testimony in April 2008, Crocker testified that the United States has approximately eighty SOFAs worldwide. A February 2008 Washington Post op-ed coauthored by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, however, put the number at "more than 115."

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that Iran liked the deal:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran took a surprisingly positive stance Monday on the Iraq-U.S. security pact after months of harshly denouncing the deal, which would keep American troops in Iraq for three more years.

"The Iraqi government has done very well regarding this," the Web site of Iran's state television quoted judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi as saying. "We hope the outcome of (the deal) will be in favor of Islam and Iraqi sovereignty."