Contractors

It seems that no one in America - including the blogosphere - is wondering what will happen on January 1 if Iraq fails to sign an "agreement" with Bush allowing U.S. forces to remain after the U.N. mandate expires on December 31. Without complete legal immunity for U.S. troops and contractors, won't they have to leave to avoid Iraqi criminal charges or lawsuits?

Truthout's Maya Schenwar reports some huge news out of Baghdad that has otherwise gone unreported:

On January 1, will the U.S. occupation of Iraq become illegal? And if so, would it matter? Finally, is there anything Bush can do to stop it?

The answers, I believe, are Yes, Yes, and No.

If I'm right, Bush would have no choice but to remove all U.S. troops (and contractors) from Iraq to keep them from ending up in Iraqi prisons.

Of course I'm not a lawyer, so I encourage lawyers to review my analysis and find the flaws. But if I'm right, then anti-war Democrats in Congress should demand answers from Bush now - before Iraqi policemen, soldiers, or judges start taking Americans into custody.

1. The legality of the U.S. occupation

Jonathan Schwarz discovered a fascinating and as-yet unreported fact: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has endorsed the Obama-Clinton plan for Iraq and rejected the McCain plan.

I believe the American forces can draw down. I don't believe the decision for a drawdown should be paused as long as Iraqi security forces -- based on the first agreement the more Iraqi forces move forward, the more U.S. forces move back until all security responsibilities are handed over and coalition forces remain in a support role. And in a support role, you don't need such a big number.

This is from the statement of Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, in front of the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday:

One conclusion I draw from these signs of progress is that the strategy that began with the Surge is working. This does not mean, however, that U.S. support should be open-ended or that the level and nature of our engagement should not diminish over time. It is in this context that we have begun negotiating a bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States...The heart of this relationship will be a legal framework for the presence of American troops similar to that which exists in nearly 80 countries around the world...

by Jonathan Schwarz
for Democrats.com

The Politico reported last week that a senior administration official stated that conflict with Congress over the U.S.-Iraqi Declaration of Principles for an ongoing bilateral agreement between the two countries "stems largely from a sloppy Arabic-to-English translation." However, say Arabic experts, the available Arabic versions of the Declaration of Principles are almost exactly the same as the official English version, and are likely direct translations from it.

Remember last November when Bush and Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship” that committed America to defending Iraq?

After Democrats Barbara Lee, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Webb, and others raised holy hell about the unconstitutionality of "virtual treaty," the White House tried to walk back its words. And now they're anonymously telling their embedded propagandists at Politico.com:

the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and that a better translation might have been, “We’ll consult.”

Bush cuts a deal that will likely retain about 50,000 troops in Iraq over the long term.

Monday's "declaration of principles" between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki indicates the US will maintain a "long-term" presence in Iraq and involve itself closely in the Iraqi oil trade, backsliding on rules made in this year's two largest defense laws. The 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, which Bush signed into law in mid-November, bars the United States from establishing permanent bases in Iraq and from exerting control over Iraqi oil. The 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which has passed the House and Senate and is expected to be sent to the president sometime in the next few weeks, contains similar language.

During the Vietnam War, AP's Peter Arnett (who later became famous as CNN's Gulf War I reporter) famously quoted fabricated an anonymous American major saying "'it became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

As the people we hate love in France say, "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

On Monday, Bush and Maliki signed a "U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation" to plan for the end of our U.N.-backed occupation of Iraq and the beginning of "normalized, bilateral relations between our two countries."

(If you thought Iraq got full "sovereignty" when Bremer left Iraq, I've got the perfect bridge for you...)

Here is one of the key principles: