Who Lost Iraq? Bush!

The Corporate Media has barely noticed the biggest foreign policy story of the year: Bush's surrender to Iraqi demands for a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. (Sorry John McCain, this agreement is not "conditions-based." Sorry Dana Perino, there is no "time horizon.")

In the binary world of conservative ideology, there can only be one winner and one loser. In this case, Iraq won and the U.S. lost.

Conservative ideology also requires all defeats to be blamed on somebody. After Mao's Communists beat Chiang Kai-shek and took over China, conservatives demanded to know "Who lost China" - as if it was somehow America's fault, rather than Chiang Kai-shek's. And ever since Richard Nixon pulled the last U.S. troops off Vietnamese roofs in helicopters, conservatives have tried to blame "the liberal media" for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

So for generations to come, conservatives will demand to know "Who lost Iraq?" The first strike in this debate comes from Nancy A. Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers, who quotes cowardly jerks (Sarah Palin's apt description of anonymous critics) with top jobs in Bush's Pentagon, which makes them Neocons. 

Why the U.S. blinked on its troop agreement with Iraq 

Although the Pentagon officially has welcomed the new accord on a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, senior military officials are privately criticizing President Bush for giving Iraq more control over U.S. military operations for the next three years than the U.S. had ever contemplated.

So who lost Iraq? George Bush. But conservative ideology also needs a "conspiracy theory" to explain such treason. So what's the narrative? 

Officials said U.S. negotiators had failed to understand how the two countries' political timetables would force the U.S. to make major concessions that relinquish much of the control over U.S. forces in Iraq. They said President Bush gave in to Iraqi demands to avoid leaving the decisions to his successor, Barack Obama.

At times, "President Bush wanted this deal more than the Iraqis did," said a senior administration official who closely monitored the negotiations.

So the conservative narrative is that Bush wanted to make the deal, not leave it to Obama. Why exactly isn't clear.

This official, and others, all who spoke anonymously to be candid, offered a first glimpse into the dynamics of the secret negotiations, which gave Iraq almost unprecedented control over U.S. troops in the period between Jan. 1 and a final U.S. withdrawal from Iraq on Dec. 31, 2011.

Yeah that part of the deal is pretty treasonous if you're a conservative who believes American troops should never be answerable to anyone but their Commander-in-Chief - and even then only if he's a Republican. 

As part of the accord, which U.S. and Iraqi officials signed in Baghdad on Monday, Iraq will have potential authority over U.S. military operations, intelligence-gathering, cargo shipments and even the mail sent to American troops. Foreign contractors are subject to Iraqi law. On Jan. 1, Iraq will assume control of the U.S.-fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, and of the nation's airspace.

That's a very long list. In other words, Bush gave away the store. In conservative terms, this isn't far from Munich, where Chamberlain gave the Sudetenland to Hitler, or Yalta, where FDR gave Eastern Europe to Stalin. 

The officials said the biggest factor in the outcome was the Iraq government's decision to re-schedule provincial elections from October until the end of January, which gave its negotiators strong arguments to drive a hard bargain.

This is elaborated below and just appears to be bad luck for Bush, not part of any conspiracy. 

At the same time in Washington, political pressures generated by Obama's victory, first in the primaries and then in the general election, led Bush to meet the Iraqi demands.

The Bush administration had sought a conventional status of forces agreement that would provide a semi-permanent basis for stationing troops in Iraq, while Obama campaigned on promises to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of his inauguration.

It's true that Obama promised a 16-month withdrawal, but the article doesn't explain why that changed Bush's negotiating stance. Was the Democratic nominee giving orders to Bush? Obviously not.

Was Bush trying to help McCain? That's a lot more likely. Perhaps Bush was trying to negate the devastating impact of McCain's huge "100 Years in Iraq" gaffe by negotiating a faster timeline. If true, that would be very interesting to know.

The Arabic language version calls the final agreement a withdrawal accord.

Ouch, that really hurts if you're a conservative. And yes, we've noticed, even if the Corporate Media hasn't.

Publicly, the Defense Department defended the agreement on Wednesday, and top officials said they're comfortable with the final document, according to a senior Pentagon aide. "They wouldn't have signed off otherwise."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Capitol Hill Wednesday to explain the agreement, which still must be ratified by Iraq's parliament, though not by the U.S. Congress.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he was comfortable with the terms of the agreement and that it adequately protects U.S. troops.

This Pentagon approval is very important to remember, in case Bush holdovers in the Pentagon try to sabotage President Obama when he implements the agreement by withdrawing U.S. forces over the next couple of years.

The White House defended what it called a "mutually agreed to agreement." Spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We asked for some things that we didn't get, they asked for some things that they didn't get. And we met them somewhere right in the middle."

Sorry Dana, but even Sarah Palin wouldn't approve the lipstick you're putting on this pig. 

Pentagon officials, however, said the White House made unprecedented concessions. In addition to allowing Iraq to search cargo and mail under some conditions, the deal bars U.S. forces from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi soil and permits Iraq to prosecute U.S. military contractors, and in some cases perhaps also American troops, under Iraqi law.

Double ouch. Neocons are especially bitter about the ban on attacking other countries, since their whole goal in conquering Iraq was to use it to conquer Iran. 

Both sides began working on the deal in the spring, months before the expiration of the United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. forces to operate in Iraq. At the time, the Iraqi government was feeling empowered by its military success against Shiite militias in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. But Washington adamantly opposed concessions to the Iraqis, said a senior military officer who closely monitored the negotiations.

So what changed? Why did Bush stop adamantly opposing concessions?

The provincial elections, which will reshape Iraq's political map, were then scheduled for October. But around July, the Iraqi government postponed them until January, and Iraqi politicians realized they could not agree to anything less than a full withdrawal and still win the elections.

OK to answer the question above, this would just seem to be simple bad luck for Bush - not something under his control. 

As Iraqis began asking for more conditions, U.S. negotiators wouldn't relent, the officer said.  

Some at the White House blamed an obstinate Pentagon. Pentagon officials said the White House didn't understand what was happening on the ground. "Baghdad looks very different from Washington," the officer told McClatchy. An administration official objected to that characterization, but said "we wasted four or five months."

So who's blaming who? The White House is blaming the Pentagon for being "obstinate," while the Pentagon is blaming the White House for not "understand[ing] what was happening on the ground." Is either view correct, or is it just finger-pointing?

Last month, both sides appeared to agree on a document. However, the Iraqis rejected the document again and demanded the right to search mail and cargo, control airspace and remove any conditions for a withdrawal.

During those months, there were many Corporate Media reports that claimed Iraq had agreed and the deal was done. But all those reports were White House bullshit, as I blogged following each one. If you simply read the Iraqi statements, you knew there was no agreement, especially because Iraq rejected blanket immunity for U.S. contractors and troops as a negation of their sovereignty.

As Obama's chances to be elected president improved, the White House felt it was under more pressure.

Again, this part of the story needs better reporting. Why exactly did Obama's polls affect Bush's position? 

Neither the administration nor the Iraqis wanted to extend the U.N. resolution. "It turned into a very peculiar political predicament," the officer said.

This also needs more reporting. Why was Bush opposed to a U.N. extension after the Russians publicly said they wouldn't block it? 

"There are a lot of safeguards and caveats on things that some are concerned about," said the senior Pentagon aide. "It sounds like a big giveaway but it's not."

On immunity for U.S. troops, I agree - the U.S. will decide whether to turn soldiers over to Iraq, which means it will never happen. But the other giveaways - especially the fixed deadline and the ban on attacking Iraq's neighbors - are definitely Big.

The White House is expected to release an English translation of the agreement as early as Thursday.

Update 1: Watch Rachel Maddow's interview with McClatchy's Nancy Youssef: