« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Iraqi Constitution Requires Parliament to Approve Long-Term U.S. Presence
Yesterday, General Douglas Lute, a top Iraq adviser to President Bush, said that the administration didn't require Senate ratification for its forthcoming long-term security guarantee to the Iraqis. It's unclear whether that's true, and I'll tell you more as soon as I know it. But even if it is, the Iraqi constitution stipulates that Iraq's parliament has to ratify any such agreement. And the Iraqi parliament is a lot more hostile to the idea of hosting U.S. troops indefinitely than the U.S. Senate is.
Take a look at Article 58, Section 4 of the Iraqi constitution. It stipulates that the Iraqi parliament shall ratify "international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority." Whether or not President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki can finagle the deal so that it's not a treaty -- as Lute suggested yesterday -- it most certainly is an "agreement."
And it's hard to see the votes for a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
In May, 144 out of 275 parliamentarians signed a petition calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces. Convincing those same parliamentarians that they should vote for an indefinite U.S. presence is made an even harder sell when considering that Maliki is dishonestly selling his deal with Bush as meaning an end to the occupation. If there was any doubt about Maliki's strategy to push the security deal through despite popular and parliamentary opposition, one of his senior aides told the Los Angeles Times that, in the paper's paraphrase, "what was being discussed was a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces in the next few years." Score one for full-on bamboozlement.
But just because, procedurally, Maliki would be constitutionally obligated to seek parliamentary ratification is no guarantee that he will. After all, he helms a government that, among other abuses of power, tortures and assassinates corruption judges for investigating his cronies. So the rule of law isn't much of a prophylactic for the Iraqi premier. But if Maliki contravenes his own constitution in order to give President Bush an enduring U.S. troop presence in Iraq, that'll at least undercut the Bush administration's pledge that it seeks this new "normalized" relationship in order to "Respec[t] and uphol[d] the Constitution as the expression of the will of the Iraqi people and stan[d] against any attempt to impede, suspend, or violate it."
Note: Thanks to TPMm Reader BF.
Comments (11)
joe wrote on November 27, 2007 12:06 PM:Well at least somebody's Constitution might be respected.
SeeDee wrote on November 27, 2007 12:14 PM:(Yawn...) It seems that Maliki hnas learned from his mentor, 'W', that a constitution is only a scrap of paper that is to be used only when its requirements do not interfere with his own dictatorial aims.
They've probably 'taken impeachment off the table' in the case of Maliki, too. Oh, maybe they just have a 'no confidence' vote...and that is also 'off the table'.
Largo wrote on November 27, 2007 12:48 PM:Maliki has about as much credibility with his countrymen as Bush does with Americans.
Carolyn wrote on November 27, 2007 1:29 PM:Does the Iraqi Parliament vote on Diebold machines?
The bush doesn't need diebold's help in Iraq. I bet there's enough U.S. dollars to convince the Iraqi parliament. Hey, two thirds? A million apiece? Bargain basement.
Long Memory wrote on November 27, 2007 1:34 PM:If we're stuck in Iraq, then I hope the next president will nominate W. himself to be the next ambassador. And send every State Dept. neocon who is interested in keeping their government job over there with him. It'll be the Devil's Island of American diplomacy, led by the Devil himself.
Of course, I'm joking. Bush would never accept the post. He doesn't have the cojones.
gcs wrote on November 27, 2007 1:38 PM:I guess no one told George he wasn't dictator of Iraq.
BronxInTN wrote on November 27, 2007 1:42 PM:Commitments of this sort require a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate. Bush can make all the promises he wants to Maliki, but it is up to Bush's successor whether to honor them in the absence of a treaty.
Any Democrat who (hopefully) succeeds Bush should state that all Bush's actions in contravention of the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It would be a good campaign theme too.
moondancer wrote on November 27, 2007 2:16 PM:That will take 5 minutes to fix. Malikis "government" is as real as the chimps compassion. No Sunnis, fig leaf Kurdish participation. They'll fix that then Maliki is the new Shah of Iraq USA.
SocraticGadfly wrote on November 27, 2007 2:23 PM:I'm taking bets on when Maliki gets car-bombed. He's walking too fine a line against al-Sadr and other harder-line Shi'ites, on one hand, and Sunni militias on the other, to have good odds of staying around too much longer.
SeeDee wrote on November 27, 2007 3:29 PM:SocraticGadfly: Maliki will be in much greater personal danger when he fails to 'toe the line' laid down by Bush/Cheney/Neocons.
Though Sadr's Shi'ites and many former Ba'ath Party Sunnis would gladly see him be-headed, some fanatical mole within his security detail who (with certain guarantees of protection from Bushco) is a more likely end for al Maliki.
He is going to find it more and more difficult to please his Iranian-backed Shia supporters at the same time he is giving away the only valuable resources those Shia possess.
Dave111 wrote on November 27, 2007 3:35 PM:Badges??? We don't need no stinking badges!