A visit by Condi...

We had a visit from the Secretary of State a couple of days ago. She was in Baghdad to negotiate the Strategic Forces Agreement which when signed will allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after this year.

She had flown into BIAP (Baghdad International Airport) from signing the recent missile defense system agreement with Poland. She met with Prime Minister Maliki for few hours and then came to the CPIC to hold a press conference. Of course it was not that simple. Though we are inside what is considered a secure area, there were hours of inspections of the place to ensure it was safe. It seems safe enough for us is not safe enough for a government official. None the less, we did get a nice visit from the bomb dog who was quite friendly, and who by the way found the premises free from explosives.

The press turn out was rather large. More than we have seen in our time here. As expected all of the questions were related to the contents of the agreement and when will it be signed. Her response, “It will be done when it is done.”

I have worked quite a bit on this agreement myself. Not the negotiating part of it but the public affairs end. It is focused on quite a bit over here, but seems to be virtually unheard of back home. I was stunned when I got here to realize we have to be out of the country by Dec. 31st, 2008 if the Iraqi Government does not invite us to stay. The United Nations mandate that allows us to remain here runs out on that date. I remember thinking, Whoo hooo! I guess we are going home. No, not so fast. And then I thought, since we have a Democratic Senate, they won't sign a treaty that keeps U.S. forces here. Wrong again. I have learned in my exposure to U.S. foreign relations that what I learned in my government classes is not necessarily true. While the U.S. Constitution directs that treaties must be ratified by the senate, all the executive branch has to do is simply not call it a treaty. So instead they call it an agreement. What is the difference you may ask? Nothing. Just the name. So it is called the Strategic Forces Agreement instead of the Strategic Forces Treaty which in both cases is signed by the governments of both nations and dictates relations between them, but in this case it skips the whole bothersome bit of Senate approval. Nicely done. So much for that whole separation of powers and checks and balances bit.

The treaty, woops sorry, agreement has been held up quite a bit on details. Of particular trouble for the Iraqi government has been the issue of immunity, air space, bases, and Iraqi public opinion. There are quite a few private security firms operating over here and the Iraqis want to make sure that the next time they gun down a car load of civilians they will not be protected by immunity. We have not had a good record of convicting contractors or rogue soldiers who have allegedly committed crimes. So the Iraqi government is refusing to sign the document until the immunity clause is removed. They also want to reduce the number of U.S. forces on the ground. There is much talk about us being out of the Iraqi cities by next summer and completely out of the country by 2011, but that will all be worked out in the agreement.

This is all particularly touchy for the elected officials over here. A similar agreement was signed with the British government back in the 1920’s that the Iraqis have not forgotten. There are constant comparisons to the “British Mandate” which brought about rebellion and the beginnings of the middle-eastern hate for the west. The similarities are striking. Will history repeat itself?

There were renewed protests in Sadr City after prayer on Friday. Al-Sadr who earlier agreed to a cease fire is again inciting his followers to speak out against what he calls the “American occupation” of Iraq because of the agreement talks. And to go with the protests we have again been introduced to a renewed effort to blow us up with mortar and rocket fire. I sure did miss those midnight sprints to the bunker.

As the CG always says, "Nothing is easy in Iraq." There are just so many players who want control. It gets rather bothersome that political posturing continually gets in the way of the good of the people. I wonder if what is best for Iraq can also be best for America - or does it really matter.

What will come from all of this? Even at the highest levels no one seems to know. But I do know we will still be here after December.