ON THE last day of this year, the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing US troops in Iraq will expire. Before then, the United States and Iraq will have to agree on new terms for the US engagement there if it is to continue legally. Under no circumstances should the Bush administration make a commitment to a continuing US role in Iraq's defense without getting the two-thirds approval from the Senate that a treaty requires.
Members of Congress are concerned that the administration might make an open-ended pledge of US military support for Iraq without Senate approval, not least because of statements the two governments made in November about the accord that would govern their relations after the UN mandate expires. At that time, the administration promised to support Iraq "against internal and external threats." But the administration's deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, General Douglas Lute, said he did not think the compact between the United States and Iraq would need congressional input.
Since November, US officials have been working on the US negotiating position. According to recent leaked accounts, the proposal calls for continuing the immunity from Iraqi laws that is now afforded to civilian contractors, such as the Blackwater security guards, who have been working with United States and other foreign forces. This provision will face opposition in Iraq, where there has been criticism of the guards for excessive use of force.
What the proposal says about any US security guarantee for Iraq is unclear. This week, Representative William Delahunt held a hearing to learn more about the direction of the negotiations, but all four top administration officials he had invited, including Lute, declined to attend. In the past, the United States has concluded, without Senate approval, numerous "status of force" agreements with other countries - agreements that, as the name suggests, govern the legal status of US forces serving in those countries. But US security guarantees for countries ranging from South Korea to the Philippines have gone before the Senate for ratification.
The reason for getting that approval is clear: a commitment with only the president's signature will not have the weight of one endorsed by a super-majority of the Senate.
Critics of an administration commitment to Iraq without congressional approval fear that such a compact, while lacking the force of a treaty, would still limit the options of a future president and Congress. Any attempt to withdraw US forces and leave Iraqi security in that country's hands could prompt accusations, both in Baghdad and in Washington, that the United States was abandoning an ally whose security it had formally guaranteed. If the administration wants its compact with Iraq to do anything more than state the legal status of US forces there, it should count on seeking Senate ratification.
