Time Running Out For US In Iraq

By Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro

A TIMETABLE for the withdrawal of US troops has long been a priority for Iraqis - 70 percent want the United States out, according to the latest polls. This sentiment is also reflected in Parliament - the only directly elected branch of government. Two months ago, the political parties representing a majority sent a letter to Congress opposing any US-Iraq security agreement without a timetable.

The Iraqi executive branch, usually allied with the Bush administration on this issue, has joined this consensus. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki insists that the agreement must "either remove US forces from the country or include a timetable for withdrawal."

But the Bush administration continues to resist, even as the clock ticks toward Dec. 31 - when the current UN mandate expires and US troops lose their legal authority to fight and their immunity from prosecution in Iraq. We are concerned that the administration is not preparing to renew the mandate, which has been done routinely and will be necessary if negotiations do not culminate in a valid security agreement.

What will it take to make a security agreement valid and binding? On the American side, many in Congress believe that any agreement supplanting the mandate must have their approval. In a July 25 Los Angeles Times op-ed, constitutional scholars Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway concluded that: "There are simply no precedents that support the presidential creation of legally binding commitments on the use of force without congressional consent."

On the Iraqi side, the Maliki government has pledged to submit the agreement to Parliament and include language on a timetable. But even if this were acceptable to a majority, achieving approval by the end of the year will be difficult. The Parliament is in recess in August, and observes Ramadan in September.

As former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi testified to Congress last week, the Maliki government has not consulted with the Parliament on the negotiations - and Parliament cannot consider the proposal without an adequate period for review. Allawi testified that it is "unlikely" that the agreement can be approved this year.

In addition, Article 61 of the Iraqi Constitution requires the Parliament to pass, by a two-thirds vote, an implementing law for approving all international agreements. With its work slowed by the lack of political reconciliation, Parliament has not even drafted this law.

As Allawi reminded Congress, the purpose of paying previously hostile Sunni militias and "surging" US patrols into volatile areas was to allow the Maliki government time to negotiate political reconciliation - so that security forces and government agencies would drop their sectarian identities and operate within a chain of command. He said: "Militarily, the surge has achieved some of its goals. Politically, I don't think so."

The reality is that US troops will still be in Iraq on Jan. 1, and they will need combat authority and immunity from prosecution. We have introduced legislation calling for an extension of the mandate to meet these needs.

This will take some work. Allawi noted the resistance in Iraq to renewing the mandate, because it was imposed by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which denigrates Iraq's sovereignty. But the mandate could be renewed at Iraq's request under Chapter VI, which covers voluntary acceptance of military forces. Allawi told Congress that this approach is worth exploring.

With time running out and with a valid bilateral agreement in doubt, the administration and the Maliki government should approach the Security Council now to work out a brief renewal of the UN mandate.

This not only protects US troops, but also gives sufficient time for the next administration to negotiate a security agreement that truly reflects the wishes of the American people and Iraqis, that is supported by democratically elected legislative bodies, and that provides for a responsible redeployment of American troops.

Regardless of one's view on the original invasion or the surge, we should all be able to agree that sorting this all out behind closed doors and at the last minute is far too risky for both the troops and the Constitution.

US Representative Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight. Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, is chairwoman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on agriculture.