Jan. 16, 2008 – 9:45 p.m.
In the Democratic presidential debate this week,
Obama smiled and said, “Well, I think we can work on this, Hillary.”
In that moment, the leading Democratic contenders for the White House made it clear that their party would make an issue of the administration’s plans to sign a broad agreement with Iraq that would define, among other things, U.S. security commitments to that country. And the two candidates’ involvement in the issue — and their apparent agreement on it — guarantee that it will become a campaign issue through the primary season and into the general election.
Beyond that, though, it also suggests a brewing clash between the legislative and executive branches over the scope and nature of the U.S. engagement in Iraq in the years ahead. The White House maintains that it does not need a congressional sign-off for such an accord. The Democrats, citing several major precedents, have made it clear that they disagree.
Clinton, of New York, introduced a bill (
“Our nation’s future presence in Iraq is one of the most important issues facing our country in the long term,” DeLauro said in a statement. “This legislation ensures that Congress will play a role in any future and lasting agreements with Iraq.”
Since World War II, broad agreements that outline Washington’s long-term political, economic and security relations with another country have taken the form of treaties, such as those that were signed with Japan and South Korea and ratified by the Senate.
The Bush administration argues that any accord with Iraq should be considered an executive agreement, similar to narrower Status of Forces agreements, or SOFAs, as they’re known in national security circles. These agreements stipulate the terms under which the United States can base its troops in a foreign country and do not require congressional approval.
During the Jan. 15 presidential debate, Clinton said it was “absolutely unacceptable” that Bush would make a long-term U.S. commitment to Iraq without receiving congressional approval. “I think we have to do everything we can to prevent President Bush from binding the hands of the next president.”
Obama, of Illinois, agreed. “The notion that President Bush could somehow tie the hands of the next president, I think, is contrary to how our democracy’s supposed to work and the voices of the American people who spoke out in 2006 and I expect will speak out again in 2008,” he said.
In late November, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a “declaration of principles,” setting forth the broad outlines of an agreement defining the economic, diplomatic, political, cultural and security elements of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship, starting in 2009 and stretching for an as-yet undetermined number of years.
The declaration said the United States would provide “security assurances and commitments” to Iraq “to deter foreign aggression.” According to the declaration, the United States also would support Iraq’s “efforts to combat all terrorist groups, at the forefront of which is al Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation, and destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance, and defeat and uproot them from Iraq.” Finally, the declaration said, the U.S. government would help with “training, equipping and arming the Iraqi Security Forces.”
At the time the declaration of principles was announced, Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, Bush’s top adviser on Iraq, said he did not “anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto on Wednesday said he had nothing to add to Lute’s comment. A State Department official said, “You don’t need to go to Congress to receive a promise from a foreign government.”
With both Clinton and Obama behind the measure, it is likely to have considerable impetus on Capitol Hill, where Democrats can be expected to rally around it.
At the time that Clinton introduced her bill, she wrote a letter to Bush, warning him not to rush into a long-term security agreement with Maliki. The letter was signed by five other Democratic senators: Armed Services Chairman
“It is unacceptable for your administration to unilaterally fashion a long-term relationship with Iraq without the full and comprehensive participation of Congress from the very start of such negotiations,” the letter said.
Clinton’s bill would stipulate that no funds may be authorized or appropriated to carry out any U.S.-Iraqi agreement involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole,” including a status of forces agreement, that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation passed by both Houses of Congress.
Moreover, the bill says the State Department must provide Congress a memorandum evaluating Bush’s decision to conclude an executive agreement rather than a treaty. The measure also would state the sense of Congress that any such agreement with Iraq that is not a ratified treaty does not have the force of law.
In the House, meanwhile, DeLauro’s measure would require the administration to consult with Congress when it develops the agreement. It would also express the sense of Congress that only a treaty with Iraq would have the force of law. And it would prohibit the spending of appropriated funds to implement any agreement unless it is a ratified treaty.
It is unclear when the Senate and House would take up the measure. A House Democratic leadership aide said the House is not likely to take up Iraq-related legislation until March.
Adam Graham-Silverman contributed to this story.