Rethinking the wisdom of a security pact with Iraq

Rethinking the wisdom of a security pact with Iraq

Democrats in Congress and President Bush might want to reassess their positions on the issue of a proposed “security pact” being negotiated between the government of Iraq and President Bush.

Until now, Democratic leaders have maintained that such a pact amounted to a treaty and that Congress, not the president, has the constitutional power to enter treaties. Congressional leaders also objected to President Bush, in the waning days of his administration, signing an agreement that could be interpreted as binding a new president to Bush policies.

The administration has refused to characterize a security pact as a treaty and has maintained that is within the commander in chief’s power to commit U.S. troops to the long-term security of Iraq.

The administration has long been protective of its power, and one of the powers it has guarded most assiduously was the president’s authority to assign troops to the war zone in Iraq. Attempts by Congress to limit troops or establish even the broadest of timetables have brought votes, threats of vetoes and filibusters by Senate Republicans. Even a provision that no troops be shipped out to Iraq unless they were properly equipped, trained and rested were rebuffed. But now, Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has put the proposed security pact in a new light.

He wants what?

During a visit to the United Arab Emirates, Maliki told Arab ambassadors that he envisioned a memorandum of understanding with the United States that would put a timetable on withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Further, Maliki said, “the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq.” This puts President Bush in the unenviable position of giving Maliki that which the president wouldn’t even discuss with his own Congress: a timetable for withdrawal of American troops and a recognition that when it comes to pursuing America’s stated vital interests in Iraq, Maliki has more of a say than Bush or whoever succeeds him ,be that John McCain or Barack Obama.

On second thought, the president might want to agree with Congress. A security pact by any other name is a treaty, and treaties can be negotiated by the president, but the Constitution says they must be ratified by the Senate.