President Bush's planned Iraq agreement avoids congressional oversight

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.(Interestingly, by the same logic, the 2002 authorization also enables Bush to extend his presidency indefinitely as well.)

The statement came in response to lawmakers' demands that the administration submit to Congress for approval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents -- a status-of-forces agreement and a separate "strategic framework" -- that they expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.

Clinton legislation

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced legislation in December that requires the President to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the U.S. military commitment to Iraq. She also joined a number of other Senators in a letter warning the President against rushing the United States into long-term security commitments to the Iraqi government and urging him to seek Congressional consent.


The legislation requires:

• No funds may be authorized or appropriated to carry out any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole,” including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), 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.

• The State Department Legal Advisor must provide to the Congress a memorandum evaluating the President’s decision to deny Congress its constitutionally protected role by concluding an agreement on the future of the U.S.-Iraqi security relationship as an executive agreement without the assent of the Congress.

• The memorandum must include an analysis of the Constitutional powers relied on by the President in reaching the conclusion that such an agreement does not require approval by the Congress.

• It is the sense of Congress that any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole”, including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation, does not have the force of law.


The precedent


The precedent for this, ironically enough, is our "special" defense relationship with Israel -- which has never been voted on, much less approved, by the Senate.

Instead, we have a "strategic memorandum" signed by the Reagan Administration and the Shamir government in the mid '80s (not long before the Iran Contra scandal broke). It basically commits the US to do for Israel whatever we would do for our NATO allies.

A piece of paper, not a treaty, never voted on, never ratified. Yet, every subsequent administration has treated it as holy writ. Obviously, Bush hopes the same will be true of his "strategy" agreement with the notional puppet government of Iraq.