According to Corporate Media reports, passage of the U.S. Withdrawal Agreement by the Iraqi Parliament means U.S. forces will leave Iraq by 12/31/11 - unless our troops are brough home by 5/31/10 as promised by Barack Obama, or sent home one year after the Iraqi people vote in a referendum in July 2009.

As David Swanson rightly asks, why don't the American people - or even Congress - have a vote?

The curious thing, of course, about this brutal mission to continue imposing our system of democracy on Iraq by staying and killing for additional years is that their parliament voted, and our Congress covered its ears, closed its eyes, and hummed. Their media covered the ongoing negotiations, while ours watched Sarah Palin pardon turkeys.

Rachel Maddow was equally outraged: 

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate must ratify all treaties. Of course the U.S. has many international agreements that are signed by the President without Senate ratification. So what's the bright line test for an agreement that is really a treaty?

The mention of "security" set off alarms for Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), who wanted to know if it required U.S. forces to defend Iraq - in other words, a full-fledged treaty.

Ryan Crocker described the agreements to the Senate on 4/8/08, prompting a question from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA):

Ambassador Crocker, with respect to the strategic framework agreement, we've had two different documents that have been, kind of, discussed almost in a way in this hearing that people may think it's one document when clearly it is not. I have a couple of questions on that.

One is, you know, I read your testimony where you say this is clearly no permanent bases, but I'm not sure really what that term means anymore.

Can you tell us what would have been in this document that would have elevated it to the point that from the administration's perspective it would have required congressional approval?

CROCKER: Senator, I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional specialist. I am advised by those individuals. So I can't give you the whole, you know, universe of issues that might be involved. But some of them are obvious.

The kind of provision that is in the NATO SOFA, of a formal security commitment: that raises that particular SOFA to the level of advice and consent by the Senate. And that is not what we intend in this current exercise.

WEBB: Well, we've been trying to get a look at what the specific wording in the document is. And to this point, it has not been shared with us. But it's been my understanding that there is a security commitment in the agreement.

CROCKER: No, sir, there isn't.

Again, the SOFA negotiation itself is still in its very early stages, and we have not yet -- although we have briefed the other document, the strategic framework agreement -- we have briefed that to the Iraqi leadership, we have not yet sat down for formal discussions. So, this is still...

WEBB: Well then, that would be the document that we in the Congress would be initially concerned with, rather than the SOFA. But I'll save this for the afternoon because my time has run out.

The official Withdrawal Agreement starts with an implicit U.S. promise to defend Iraq:

Recognizing the importance of: strengthening their joint security, contributing to world peace and stability, combating terrorism in Iraq, and cooperating in the security and defense spheres, thereby deterring aggression and threats against the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of Iraq and against its democratic, federal, and constitutional system;

As DHinMI makes clear, Iraq cannot defend itself yet:

Until and unless the Iraqis have choppers, tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, they can't fully operate as a modern military force. Iraq's terrain makes this especially problematic, because Iraq is essentially an urban river valley surrounded by a vast desert that is difficult to defend, with no natural boundaries protecting Iraq from invasions from any direction except the North. And this doesn't even address other key defensive capabilities such as air defenses and fighter jets.

With massive and stunningly valuable oil reserves, an unguarded and unprotected Iraq would present enticing targets for any number of Iraq's neighbors. Saudi Arabia or Iran could covet the oil fields in the south, while Turkey could seek to seize the oil fields in the north.

So the "deterrence" promise in the Withdrawal Agreement is not hypothetical but quite real. Doesn't that make it a treaty?

Update 1: Is there a different secret agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq to defend it against external aggression for years to come, as Siun suggests?

Is the Bush administration so desperate to have almost any agreement so long as the SOFA is portrayed here as some form of victory or is there more going on here? As Bernard at Moon of Alabama reminds us, Mailiki and Crocker signed two agreements, not just the SOFA - and the second, a Strategic Forces Agreement, may be the more important as he notes in "The Iraq SOFA Is A Shiny Object that is supposed to keep our eyes away from the problematic text of the SFA."

David Swanson found the SFA on the White House web site. It includes a security section, but that section is explicitly subordinate to the Withdrawal Agreement described above.

Section III: Defense and Security Cooperation

In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq, and thereby contribute to international peace and stability, and to enhance the ability of the Republic of Iraq to deter all threats against its sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity, the Parties shall continue to foster close cooperation concerning defense and security arrangements without prejudice to Iraqi sovereignty over its land, sea, and air territory. Such security and defense cooperation shall be undertaken pursuant to the Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.

Roads to Iraq cites a report in the Jordanian newspaper Factjo of ten articles in a secret agreement, including:

7- The U.S. forces have the right to use the Iraqi ground, water and air to strike any country threatens the international and regional peace and security, the Government of Iraq and its constitution.

Since I don't know Arabic, I can't assess Factjo as a source.

But if there is a secret agreement that trumps the Withdrawal Agreement, the Democratic Congress - and progressives - need to find out...