Month: October 2008

by Eric Martin

For those looking to probe the possible motives behind Sunday’s coordinated airstrikes and special forces incursions into Syria, the always informative Daniel Levy surveys a sampling of the most prominent theories, as well as the likely costs.  One such cost was felt almost instantly with respect to the ongoing SOFA/strategic framework negotiations:

Iraq wants a security agreement with the U.S. to include a clear ban on U.S. troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq’s neighbors, the government spokesman said Wednesday, three days after a dramatic U.S. raid on Syria. […]

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the ban was among four proposed amendments to the draft agreement approved by the Cabinet this week and forwarded to the U.S. […]

Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the U.S. unilaterally attacks one of Iraq’s neighbors.

Meanwhile, Eli Lake, in reliable fashion, provides the view of events from the neocon camp: that this military action is one of the first manifestations of a new doctrine of soldiers without borders.

We have entered a new phase in the war on terror. In July, according to three administration sources, the Bush administration formally gave the military new power to strike terrorist safe havens outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Before then, a military strike in a country like Syria or Pakistan would have required President Bush’s personal approval. Now, those kinds of strikes in the region can occur at the discretion of the incoming commander of Central Command (Centcomm), General David Petraeus…

The new order could pave the way for direct action in Kenya, Mali, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–all places where the American intelligence believe al Qaeda has a significant presence, but can no longer count on the indigenous security services to act. In the parlance of the Cold War, Petraeus will now have the authority to fight a regional "dirty war."

Reliably, again, Lake keeps his eyes on the prize with respect to Iran – even if his own recounting of the new doctrine doesn’t fit quite as neatly with conditions in that country.  Lake says this of Iran:

Strikes within Iran could be justified by the order, since senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel are believed to have used that country as a base for aiding the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda affiliates in Iraqi Kurdistan. [emphasis added]

That is an interesting choice of words from Lake.  First, the less-than-forceful "believed to have" formulation should be recognized as the tell it is.  The existing evidence is tenuous at best, and even then, much of it has filtered through dubious channels responsible for so much Iraq war misinformation.  Contra Lake, Saif al-Adel is also "believed to have" been placed under house arrest by Iran, not left free to to plan and coordinate attackes, but that is not mentioned.  In Internet postings and other mediums, al-Adel complains of Iran disrupting al-Qaeda’s efforts and arresting large numbers of operatives looking to escape to Iraq from Afghanistan, through Iran.  It’s not even clear from available evidence that al-Adel is still in Iran. 

Lake then attempts to apply rhetorical brick and mortar to the new framework:

The big mystery now is whether the next administration will dismantle this policy or permit Petraeus to follow it to fruition. Obama has said nothing about Sunday’s strikes in Syria (a silence that has rightly earned him taunting from the McCain campaign).

Um, doesn’t McCain also taunt Obama for his willingness to openly state his support for airstrikes in Pakistan ("You just don’t do that my friends")?  But now that Obama won’t state his support for airstrikes and other military action against Syria, McCain is right to taunt Obama for his reticence?  Regardless, Obama was properly following the lead of the White House and Pentagon in not commenting on military actions that were not yet formally acknowledged.  As Ilan Goldenberg points out:

Read more

by Eric Martin

On Sunday night, the US military conducted airstrikes in Syrian territory – ostensibly targeting hubs used to facilitate the passage of foreign fighters into Iraq, and possibly to target AQI personnel.  Although initially, certain members of the Iraqi government seemed to sign off on the operation, today, the Iraqi government issued a forceful condemnation:

Iraq’s government denounced on Tuesday a U.S. air strike on a Syrian border village in an unexpected rebuke of Washington.

"The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria. The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The Bush administration chose an interesting time to go ahead with this cross-border attack, as such aggressive actions could severely compromise the already problematic negotiations over the status of forces agreement (SOFA), with autonomy over military operations within, and launched from, Iraq’s borders being an issue of contention (the SOFA has been discussed in prior posts, most recently here and here).  The article alludes to the delicacy of the situation:

The criticism of the United States was announced after a cabinet meeting to discuss a security pact to allow U.S. forces to stay in Iraq.

The pact has so far been blocked mainly by Shi’ite political parties, and one of their main complaints has been that the accord might allow U.S. troops to use Iraq as a base to attack neighboring countries.

It’s not just the Shiite political parties that oppose the current draft, however.  The Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), one of the main Sunni political parties as led by Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, has also come out in opposition to the SOFA in its current form.  Meanwhile, Maliki’s spokesman has indicated that he will not sign the current draft, and as discussed last week, Robert Gates has stated that this is the final offer:

"The problem is that when we were given the latest draft, we were told the American negotiators will accept no amendments to it, and the Iraqi government has more requirements," said Sagheer, an Islamic cleric who later led the Friday prayers broadcast on national television.

He said that Maliki had come to the Political Council for National Security, a top decision-making body, and said the new accord was the best he could obtain, but it didn’t include everything that Iraq wanted.

If Maliki signed the accord and turned it over to the parliament, "I’m sure that the agreement will not be approved for 10 years," Sagheer said.

Swopa takes the view that Maliki et al are simply trying to squeeze the best possible deal out of the Bush administration, and has been employing classic negotiating tactics (especically effective given the Bush administration’s obvious agenda):

Isn’t that a classic haggling technique in any society?  Let the other side know you’re oh-so-close to a deal, encourage them to make a few concessions to close the gap… and just as they do and reach for the pen, pull back and say, “Wait, there’s one more thing you need to agree to.”

You’d almost think they’re having fun toying with the Bushites at this point.

Certainly a possibility.  Along these lines, Aswat al-Iraq is reporting that the Iraqi cabinet has made major changes to the SOFA and will resubmit the revised version to their American counterparts.  We’ll see if Gates was bluffing, or holding firm.  To counter Maliki’s tactics, the Bush administration has, for the first time that I can recall, attempted to use a bit of leverage itself.  Crude, but perhaps effective – reminscent of the "take all my toys and go home" schoolyard gambit:

The U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1 if the Iraqi government doesn’t agree to a new agreement on the status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations mandate for the American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Newspapers on Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector and other areas – "everything" – said Tariq al-Hashimi, the country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

On the other side of the ledger, a triumverate of Shiite religious authorities have weighed-in on the SOFA.  Matt’s Atomic Duss Bin has the details:

Read more