You will be forgiven (in fact, you'll even get a few Brownie points) for having been riveted by the Annapolis Conference, the spirit of which continues today at White House talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert, hosted by George W. Bush. But you'll get at least ten demerits for missing the news from Iraq. No, not the latest casualty numbers, which show the number of US soldiers killed inching steadily towards the 4,000 mark, despite the Surge-induced relative "calm." Nor the trickle of Iraqi refugees returning from Syria, though that might either be a sign that they see something afoot back home, or simply that Syria has enough problems of its own and can't provide them any more jobs.
The news I'm talking about are these two items that may have escaped your attention while watching the US Naval Academy show: Iraqi PM Maliki and President Bush signing a framework agreement outlining bilateral talks to cement longterm US-Iraqi relations; and the Maliki government's application to the United Nations (you may ask, "why are they asking Ban Ki-moon and not George Bush?") to extend the American (sorry, Coalition) troop presence for one more - "final" - year. Did you know that? According to the BBC
"The United States has promised that the multinational forces will stay under a UN mandate only until the end of 2008," Mr Maliki said in a televised address. Mr Maliki said that Iraq had reached the stage where it did not need coalition forces, adding that the country should be allowed to become a "normal state".
If you're like some principals in the US Government, maybe you were on your elliptical trainer and couldn't switch channels. But I'm sure some people - especially those who have been saying that the US could be in Iraq for 10 years, 20 years, or however long "enduring" lasts - will have seen the significance of Maliki's moves.
Back to the Iraqi-United States agreement. According to the AFP
At the White House, US "war czar" Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said that next year's talks would cover issues at the heart of the bitter US debate over the war -- including whether Washington would have permanent bases in Iraq, how many US troops would be stationed there, and for how long. "The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," Lute told reporters in a briefing on the tentative accord. "The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, US presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said. Lute's remarks were notable in that top US officials, starting with Bush, have repeatedly denied seeking permanent bases in Iraq or that the US deployment -- currently at roughly 162,000 troops -- is open-ended.
I have the greatest respect for LTG Douglas Lute, but I guess I might quibble when a three star US Army general addresses what really should be in Condoleeza Rice's bailiwick. Or, perhaps if she were too busy getting ready for Annapolis, then maybe our main diplomat in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, might have announced this important bilateral process.
But then, I'm an ex-diplomat, so what do you expect? Niceties like civilian primacy in matters of diplomacy may have been dealt a death blow by this unilateralist administration. And then there's the time line: the July 31 2008 target date to reach "agreements between the two governments with respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres," according to the White House document. That should be just in time for the September 2008 Republican Convention, where the Republican nominee can wave around another "Mission Accomplished" sign before the final stretch of the Presidential campaign.
Most sovereign countries, when they want to manage "political, cultural, economic, and security" relations with the United States, simply set up an embassy in Washington and get on with business. Unless you're a client state - or in a state of "enduring" occupation - you can also communicate with the US through its ambassador in your capital. This agreement has all the hallmarks of another decades-long commitment of US troops. But we can't say we weren't told before: back in late May, as the nascent Petraeus Report was beginning to be hyped, we had the roll out of the "Korea Model."
All a bit much, while the Mideast peacemaking glow is still warm? Okay, go and change channels.