FAQ: The U.S.-Iraq "Withdrawal" Agreement

Jan 28, 2009

FAQ: The U.S.-Iraq Withdrawal Agreement

The United States is beholden to a number of responsibilities under the U.S.-Iraq Withdrawal Agreement, more commonly referred to as the "status of forces agreement" with Iraq. Chief among those responsibilities, the U.S. is committed to complete withdrawal from Iraq by December 31, 2011. However, the agreement was approved in Iraq on the condition that the Iraqi public vote on it. If a majority of Iraqi voters vote "no", all U.S. troops would have to withdraw by January 2011 in the absence of a replacement agreement. FCNL urges the Obama administration and Congress to fully commit to honor the outcome of the Iraqi referendum vote.

The United States and Iraq reached an agreement in November 2009 that U.S. combat forces should withdraw from Iraqi towns by June 2009, with all U.S. forces gone by December 31, 2011. FCNL urges President Obama and the 111th Congress to fulfill its obligations to Iraq for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

1) What is the U.S.-Iraq Agreement?
2) What is the referendum in Iraq about? How could this change the dates for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq?
3) Is the U.S.-Iraq Agreement a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)? Or is it a treaty? Does it have to be approved by Congress to be valid?

1)What is the U.S.-Iraq Agreement?

On January 1, 2009, the U.S.-Iraq security agreement went into effect as the key document that sets the terms for the military relationship between the U.S. and Iraq. This agreement replaced the UN Mandate which had authorized U.S. military control over Iraq in consecutive UN Security Council resolutions since May 2003. The agreement requires the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by December 31, 2011.

2) What is the referendum in Iraq about? How could this change the dates for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq?

The U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement was passed on the condition that the Iraqi public approve it by a popular vote, or a referendum. If a majority of Iraqis approve of the agreement, a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops will be required by December 31, 2011.

If a majority of Iraqis vote against the agreement, the agreement could be canceled one year from the vote. It would require the removal of all U.S. troops by as early as January 2010. It is possible that another agreement could be negotiated that would extend the presence of U.S. forces. However, it is highly unlikely the Iraqi government would agree to this since a "no" vote would be such a clear statement of opposition to the U.S. military presence.

This referendum on the U.S.-Iraq agreement is expected to be held on January 16, 2010, at the same time as the parliamentary elections.

Some press reports indicate that the Obama administration has lobbied the Iraqi government to oppose holding a referendum on the agreement. 16 members of Congress wrote to President Obama on this issue, urging him to support--not thwart--the Iraqi referendum.

FCNL opposes the continuing U.S. military occupation of Iraq, but we welcome an Iraqi referendum on the U.S.-Iraq agreement. If the referendum expected to be held in Iraq rejects the agreement, Obama should work with the Iraqi cabinet and parliament to implement full withdrawal from Iraq in 12 months.

3) Is the U.S.-Iraq Agreement a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)? Or is it a treaty? Does it have to be approved by Congress to be valid?

The U.S.-Iraq Agreement is a broad-sweeping security agreement that should be be approved by Congress to legitimate the agreement and uphold the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

President Bush insisted the agreement was only a SOFA, and refused to submit it for congressional approval. FCNL urges President Obama to submit it for congressional approval and urges the 111th Congress to insist on an opportunity to vote on the agreement.

A U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement that the president signs with another government that sets the terms of how U.S. military forces will operate in that country. Its main purpose is to deal with the question of legal immunity for U.S. soldiers, or if and how U.S. soldiers will be prosecuted if they commit a crime. The U.S. has SOFAs with over a hundred countries that only required approval from the executive branch—not Congress.

A treaty with a foreign government, however, requires two-thirds majority approval by the Senate. In the countries where the U.S. has a large-scale military presence, more long term security agreements have been approved by Congress in the form of a treaty. When the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower submitted the agreements as treaties requiring congressional approval. Even when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.

The U.S.-Iraq agreement goes well beyond setting the terms for legal immunity for U.S. soldiers. It replaces the UN mandate and becomes the new authorization for war in Iraq.

The agreement’s full title is “the agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.”

While the start of the negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq aimed for a long term and expansive U.S. military presence in Iraq, the final version became an agreement mandating a complete withdrawal from Iraq. To ensure that this agreement for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces is followed and the constitutional balance of powers is respected, Congress should insist on an opportunity to vote on the agreement.