Tweet
The trial balloon yo-yo is a favored tactic of the Obama Administration. They will leak a bit of information, see what kind of reaction they get, and then give a public denial. This is what has happened with the news that the White House will withdraw all military troops from Iraq at the end of the year, rather than subjecting them to being liable for prosecution if they violate Iraqi law. We’ve seen a walkback on this for a couple days, and now it comes from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed hope Monday that the United States and Iraq can soon reach agreement on a possible U.S. military training role in Iraq beyond Dec. 31, when all American troops are scheduled to depart.
Panetta’s remarks contrasted with indications from a senior Obama administration official and a senior U.S. military official on Saturday that the U.S. is abandoning plans to keep any troops in Iraq past the year-end withdrawal deadline — other than about 160 troops who would be attached to the U.S. Embassy [...]
“At the present time I’m not discouraged because we’re still in negotiations with the Iraqis,” Panetta said Monday when asked by a reporter whether the talks had hit an impasse. He said James Jeffrey, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, and Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander there, were in “discussions with Iraqi leaders” that could still yield agreement on a post-2011 U.S. military presence.
Here’s one trial balloon walk-back I don’t believe at all. The initial report had multiple sources of high-level officials, albeit anonymous ones. But more important, the Iraqis cannot come up with a deal that the Americans will accept. First, there has been no wavering on legal immunity, which is a dealbreaker for the Americans. Second, Nouri al-Maliki depends on the Sadrists for his continued presence as Prime Minister. Third, there’s actually no Parliamentary session in Iraq scheduled until November 20, leaving precious little time to make a deal, particularly among fractious Iraqi Parliamentarians.
Panetta actually acknowledged this, by talking about training missions rather than the presence of forces inside Iraq. He floated the option of NATO or outside contractors training the Iraqis, too. The idea that there would be trainers, members of the US military in particular, inside Iraq after 2011 was not front and center here.
As Juan Cole writes, a failed state will be left behind in Iraq. But it’s not really one we’ve shown the ability to revive. And 3-5,000 troops that would not have either freedom of movement or immunity from prosecution certainly couldn’t do that. So while Panetta may be hopeful for some kind of training mission – probably one outside of Iraq, or a “NATO alternative,” which he floated in this Q&A session – I still believe that what was reported last week will be what will happen.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“I still believe that what was reported last week will be what will happen.” Oh, may it be so!
It does not appear CLEAR whether the Iraqis want us to stay or leave.
It also does not appear CLEAR whether Obama/Panetta want us to stay or leave.
Why exactly do we give a shit??? Why do we still need to train those people. We’ve been training them for years. Can;t th ey “train” themselvesd by now??? This is ridiculous. One would think that the “law of averages” would catch up wioth Obama and that he’d get SOMETHING right….eventually.
If they won’t meet our needs to stay, LEAVE FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD.
The US — surprise! — isn’t being forthright here and the news reports aren’t helpful.
There have been mentions of immunity:
*Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts
*But the Iraqi government insists these troops would be confined to training missions on military bases, and therefore wouldn’t need the blanket immunity they now enjoy.
But immunity has never come up before, and there’s no immunity now according to the bilateral agreement. Usually it’s the opposite. Countries have blanket jurisdiction unless there is a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). No SOFA, no US troops. That is currently the case in Thailand and Yemen.
The United States generally does not maintain a large, standing military presence in nations where a SOFA has not been signed. Customary international law gives nations exclusive authority to prosecute foreign soldiers, unless this sovereign right is waived in a SOFA or comparable agreement. This potential exercise of exclusive host jurisdiction is unfavorable for the U.S. military, especially when the host nation does not recognize constitutional guarantees for accused. Consequently, the United States generally deploys relatively small numbers of military personnel on a temporary basis to nations that have not signed a SOFA.
One US officer said that the current status quo would suffice:
“What we want in Iraq would have to have the same sort of legal protections that they do now have under the security agreement or the same sort of legal protections our soldiers have that are serving in any other country around the world. So I’m confident that it would be part of the discussions.”
What the US has now under the Security Agreement is:
“Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated pursuant to paragraph 8, when such crimes are committed outside agree facilities and area and outside duty status. . .Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contract employees.”(Jurisdiction on other infractions is with the US)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) SOFA is a model for bilateral U.S. agreements on criminal jurisdiction. The NATO SOFA divides the power to prosecute visiting soldiers among the sending state and the receiving (host) state. By dividing this authority, the NATO SOFA eases a tension arising from each state’s inherent interest in criminal jurisdiction.
Again, immunity is never a choice. So what’s happening with Iraq that makes it so special? Perhaps the years of the US military shooting, injuring, detaining and torturing Iraqis have left some bad memories? (Speaking of which the US doesn’t have a SOFA with Afghanistan.)