The U.S. State Department’s David M. Satterfield is “confident” that the proposed agreements between Iraq and the U.S. outlining their future relationship can be completed in July. According to the Washington Post this morning, “It’s doable,” he told reporters in Baghdad. “We think it’s an achievable goal.”
But Khalaf al-Olayan, a Sunni bloc leader in Iraq’s parliament, told Al Jazeera: “It’s not possible to finalise an agreement of this importance so quickly. The timing is extremely tight.”
“[The proposed agreement] has to be presented first to the Iraqi parliament or put to a national referendum because there are very important issues regarding national sovereignty.”
Public hostility to the agreement by Iraqi politicians has increased in the past week, as purported details have leaked to the media. According to the Washington Post:
“The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq,” said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament’s foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “If we can’t reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, ‘Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don’t need you here anymore.’ “
The Christian Science Monitor explains such Iraqi resistance “could mean the US will have to settle for a watered-down accord reached later in the year, analysts say. Some experts say the only alternative at this point is another year-long extension of the UN agreement authorizing the foreign-troop presence – though neither Maliki nor Bush favors that option.”
The reaction of the Iraqi politicians “is probably negotiating bluster more than anything else. Maliki, in fact, does need us in Iraq, and he knows that we know it, ” according to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly. He continues,
[P]ublic opinion in Iraq, stoked largely by the Sadrists, is now so opposed to a long-term American presence that Maliki feels like he has to win some significant concessions on this score merely to keep from being tossed out of power. Needless to say, this bodes poorly for our long-term chances in Iraq.
Hmmm… Our long-term chances for a good relationship with Iraq have been poor since at least the day we invaded, it seems to me. But, if Drum is suggesting that our long-term chances are tied to the success of the Maliki government, I disagree. I don’t have a clue whether Maliki will survive long in office (or whether elections will be remotely fair, in the future). But evidence suggests that he’s viewed by much of the Iraqi population as a “tool” of the U.S. So it seems unlikely that he will be reelected without our active support. And unlike John McCain, I want to get our people out of Iraq, not stay to prop up an unacceptable status quo.
I’d suggest the groundswell of support for Iraqi nationalism is one of the few things that may bode well for a long-term non-hostile relationship between the U.S. and Iraq. The sentiment has the potential to hold the country together in the face of the centrifugal forces pushing it apart. I’ve lost all hope that the current administration has the capacity to negotiate anything constructive or make any significant changes in diplomatic direction. But, by early 2009 there will be a new administration in Washington, and provincial elections in Iraq will hopefully send a new (and more balanced) group of legislators to Baghdad. If Maliki is forced by popular will to respond to the Sadrists concerns and aspirations (which we have obstinately refused to hear for 6 years), that is the way a democratic government is supposed to work and not an inherent sign of weakness. If we can negotiate a future relationship with all of the players in Iraq (admittedly unlikely, but possible), there will be a better chance that we can withdraw our troops safely and cooperatively and allow Iraq to develop into a responsible and self-reliant nation.
