The United States and the Iraqi government entered into a new Status of Forces Agreement last year that stipulated the terms of a drawdown and provided a timetable for the extrication of U.S. troops from the region, and, in a move that hardly seems surprising to anyone who has followed the news of how that Status of Forces Agreement took shape - perhaps not coincidentally dovetailing rather neatly with the withdrawal proposal pitched by the Obama campaign throughout the back end of the election season - President Obama appeared before a crowd at Camp LeJeune today to publicly announce our intention to follow the guidelines of this agreement.
Naturally, I'm a bit taken aback at how the press has been covering this. My! They are so full of questions! Thomas Ricks has been providing his typical sober analysis, but in other cases, the tone has been very weird. I heard one talking head exclaim something to the effect, "Don't worry! There could always be a new Status of Forces Agreement at some point in the future!" - as if a change in condition that required us to re-up our troop presence in Iraq would be a something to look forward to, or an outcome for which we should keep our fingers crossed. Very strange people, these pundits!
For edification, here's what Secretary Gates had to say about the SoFA getting modified:
The defense secretary was asked if he supported keeping troops in Iraq beyond 2011, when the Status of Forces Agreement that President Obama pledged today to support mandates a full U.S. withdrawal. Gates said such a move would require a revision of the SOFA, a move that, if it happened, would "almost certainly" come from an Iraqi request, not U.S. initiative, and the "Iraqis have not said anything" about such a revision.
"It's hypothetical, because no such request has been made, and there's no indication it will be at this point," he said, cautioning that his "own view" would be to "be prepared to have a very modest presence for training, help with equipment and providing perhaps intelligence support beyond" 2011. But the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement are "what we are operating under now."
Anyway, it would appear that there's been a political Status of Forces Agreement as well, as evidenced in the support John McCain is now giving to Obama's plan. It's important support, I suppose, if you are a big fan of "optics" and "bipartisanship" and the sort of non-practical goods produced inside the beltway that the press gorges themselves on but that really carry no meaning for the American people. This clip of McCain seems to state the general terms of this non-essential exchange: McCain gives his non-essential support, and is generally allowed to croak majestically about THE SURGE, and blah-de-blah, I guess some other media in a parallel universe will persist with questions over whether it was a good thing to allow Afghanistan and Pakistan to lapse into corruption and dysfunction, for Hamas and Hezbollah to enhance their regional status, and for Iraq to be handed over to Iran as a client-state, all for the sake of, what? Proving the efficacy of reinforcements? Oh well, just as long as all the Beltway courtiers are getting along this weekend!
Still, McCain is quick to note that 50,000 troops will remain, for a time, in "harm's way," in a way that comes close to sounding as if he thinks that should relieve us of worry. On that score, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the ultimate upshot comes courtesy of Spencer Ackerman: "The Iraq debate is over." Now that the press has rediscovered their love of scrutiny and inquiry, let's hope they hold on to it the next time a President - any President - says, "Have I got a war for you!"
[WATCH.]