US-Iraq SOFA

In the Isaacs and Sharp report, I found it interesting that they listed the requirement of no permanent bases under the "Good" heading, I thought most military leaders wanted to keep a presence in Iraq to use it as a staging ground. But the argument of sovereignty, or perceived sovereignty, is a compelling one. It's one of the main issues in the debate about foreign basing, and it shows how prevalent the debate on basing is.

In "The Bad" section, they talk about the SOFA's chain of command and how it might impede necessary military operations. They state that "Some US military officers already are speculating that they will need to obtain arrest warrants before detaining Iraqi suspects or searching homes." (pg. 3) Okay, so law enforcement officials need to obtain those warrants before arresting Americans or searching their homes. I was under the impression that that was a constitutionally mandated right, and those rights are supposed to apply to all persons equally. Is it really a stretch that Iraqis are people, too? I understand that terrorism doesn't afford the luxury of personal rights and arrest warrants, but it that kind of reaction necessary? It seems like they (the military officers) are complaining and dragging their feet about something that they expect to happen in the US. I think it is incredibly hypocritical to complain about that in Iraq when it is taken for granted here that officials cannot unreasonably search your property or take you into custody. Are the officials saying that some of the rights Americans have are not applicable to Iraqis? I don't know where I'm going with this but that sentence really bothered me (maybe it's because of the Supreme Court course I'm taking this semester).

The Fadel article highlights how difficult it is to get a consensus of Iraq's policies because of the factious nature of the country. I'm curious to see what SOFA eventually passes, and how much it differs from the one that is currently proposed.