It was natural for Baghdad to show some teeth in ongoing negotiations after Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki rejected a broad security pact with the United States. There is finally a withdrawal timetable on the table - to remove all foreign combat troops from Iraqi soil by the end of 2011 - even if juvenile denials flourished. Still, it is fair to ask: how solid is this timetable?
Irrespective of a Barack Obama or a John McCain victory on November 4, the Bush Administration's latest pact with Al Maliki sets the stage for a gradual pullback. According to the Iraqi premier, a satisfactory agreement was finally reached because "an open time limit is not acceptable in any security deal that governs the presence of the international forces". Al Maliki did not mince his words when he confirmed that "no pact or agreement should be set without being based on full sovereignty, national common interests, and no foreign soldier should remain on Iraqi land, and there should be a specific deadline and it should not be open".
Indeed, this reinvigorated outlook by Al Maliki was something of a surprise, especially since Baghdad rejected an American request for legal immunity for both troops and security contract workers. His determination to compel private contractors working in Iraq to operate under national law was even more astonishing. Under the circumstances, it must be emphasised that Washington challenged the withdrawal commitment, as well as the legal immunity clauses in the preliminary agreement, citing various caveats that mortgaged future pullbacks to improved safety conditions.
Still, Al Maliki was not deterred and insisted that with this latest covenant, the United States was committed not to act unilaterally. It remains to be determined whether improved conditions in Iraq, a rather vague terminology, are subject to American or Iraqi interpretations. The devil is in the detail, as the expression goes, and time will reveal what were the actual terms agreed upon.
Of course, no agreement was signed yet, although one may be after the Iraqi parliament gets a chance to debate the issue. When one is duly inked, the American adventure in Mesopotamia would have lasted eight long years, or twice as long as the Second World War. Beyond human and financial costs, the Iraq debacle will probably occupy a unique place in American history, perhaps only surpassed by the Civil War that literally positioned brother against brother. In Iraq, the Bush Administration split the globe into at least two groups, which are now on a more or less permanent warpath. The only difference with the civil war was the genuine threat in the latter whereas Iraq was laced around mega lies.
In the event, it was important to underline that the Al Maliki-Bush agreement intended to remove combat troops by the end of 2011, only if the security situation remained relatively stable. An estimated 40,000 trainers, logisticians and intelligence personnel would still be deployed in the country for an undefined period. Even if Al Maliki managed to sell such a "deal" to his fractious political establishment, not to mention a wary Iraqi public, how would such a large US military presence be perceived?
Given Baghdad's political doldrums, and for the balance of the year, the Bush Administration's resolute bargaining tactics should surprise no one. While priority might be given to McCain's preferences, compromises would be few and far in between, because it would be in Bush's interests to pass the torch to a government that was partial to much of his agenda. Naturally, though McCain espoused a more idealistic framework, coordination with the White House would be logical.
Important
This was important because without a solid agreement by November 4, the risk that an Obama Administration might signal a new arrangement would linger, although that was probably wishful thinking. Few should anticipate such epochal changes from Washington irrespective of the victor in the presidential contest. An Obama or a McCain Administration will adopt embarrassingly similar positions even if the latter might stretch the timetable to 2013.
Remarkably, Bush changed his mind about a timetable - after refusing to even hear about it - because he wishes to salvage part of his tarnished reputation, and because he pretends that he invaded and occupied Iraq to spread democracy there. Over the course of the past few months, Baghdad regained confidence and successfully fought armed gangs that claimed allegiance to various factions. In short, it was finally safe to declare that Iraqis were slowly sorting out differences, and that they would probably regain full control over their sovereignty between 2011 and 2013.
It remains to be determined, however, whether Baghdad's renewed drive to arrest, drive away or otherwise intimidate tens of thousands of Sunni security volunteers known as "Sons of Iraq," will translate into new sectarian divisions that will wipe out recent gains.
Iraq is now confronted with a 'surge' dilemma. It can either keep the country unified or drag it into an inevitable division (as envisaged by the Democratic vice-presidential candidate some time ago).
In January 2007, American might allowed Al Maliki government to reduce violence, ostensibly to facilitate political reconciliation, even if the understandings that occurred were very limited. Dramatic security improvements buttressed a weak Al Maliki government, but Byzantine squabbles prevented significant political progress throughout the past year.
The issue in 2008 is Al Maliki's overconfidence, perhaps even unwillingness, to entertain sorely needed accommodation with some of his adversaries. One hopes that the astute Al Maliki will do everything in his power to avoid a civil war.
Little will happen between now and November 4, but what will occur on that day, and irrespective of who wins, will be an end to both American and Iraqi hubris.
The dirty job of withdrawal will then start. It will be messy and dangerous, but necessary for Iraq to endure to seal its renewed sovereignty stripes.
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
