*This is extremely long 

There is an argument that the current proposed and negotiated Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq is a treaty with Iraq and therein it must be authorized by the Congress of the United States as outlined by the Constitution of the United States.

The unfortunate reality is that a SOFA is a purely military agreement between two countries.  However, to properly examine The Situation, as it is noted, we must start with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.  

The Military Forces of, at the very least, the United States of America, have been acting with the authority of the Congress of the United States to continue military activities in Iraq, under the purview of the President, who is under the purview, as deemed by the above mentioned Authorization Act, to carry out the duties discharged through this Act and his Executive Office to protect the United States’ national security from any “continuing threats posed by [the Nation of] Iraq,” and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.  The questions becomes, with the establishment of the newly formed Iraqi Government in 2006, does Iraq still pose a continuing threat to the National Security of the United States.  As by the admission of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Nation of Iraq nor Iraqi’s alone pose a threat to the National Security of the United States, but in fact terrorists and insurgents pose such a threat.  If this logic is taken into account since the formation of the Iraqi government in 2006 the United States Military and the President of the United States, have been acting against the Law of the Land as deemed by one clause of the Authorization Act.  However, could one make the case the United States is continuing to carry out UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq, and therein abiding by the Law of the Land.

Roughly examining the UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq, none currently exist in which the United States would find enforceable. Due to the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found, the intent of many past Resolutions are null and void, and furthermore because Iraq has an established and recognized government.  Finally the very clause in the Authorization Act insisting that the President carry out any UN Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq goes against the intent of the Constitution of the United States.  Being that the UN Security Council is a non-elected body that does not represent the American citizenry, and therein the President has no right what-so-ever to carry out its Resolutions.

Taking the above examinations of the Authorization Act into account, I find that the current Military Presence (dating from the establishment of the current Iraqi government in 2006, therein the Presence being from 2006 to current day) in Iraq is by no means what-so-ever authorized by the Legislative Branch of the United States government. I find it hard to categorize such a Presence.

First it should be noted, if not understood, that, if the above logic is followed, the Authorization Act does not cover our current Military Presence in Iraq.  Secondly an argument could be made that the Presence is authorized by the Iraqi government as formed in 2006 to present day; however there be no officiated Status of Forces Agreement reached with the newly formed, established, and recognized Iraqi Government.  Therein by all accounts, herein stated, the current Presence in Iraq is an illegal act and technically violates the sovereignty of a foreign nation.  To remedy this situation, forces should be re-tasked to only find and destroy terroristic elements [within the country of Iraq], and this should seek congressional approval, as deemed by the Constitution’s clause for committing war against another sovereign, however it could be authenticated via a different and proven method (a SOFA).  Or, the entire Military Presence in Iraq after the establishment of the recognized and sovereign government in 2006, some could argue, would come under the purview of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, however, the title of this act of Congress is misleading, and in point of fact the wording of this legislation only allows the President to go after those who perpetrated the attacks of September 11th, 2001 by planning, authorizing, committing, and/or aiding the attacks, which the Pentagon and other agencies of the U.S. have deemed does not necessarily apply to all terrorist operations in Iraq.

A SOFA would remedy the situation if and only if it committed U.S. Military Forces to hold a presence in Iraq in a purely military manner.  Meaning that the rebuilding and reconstruction efforts in Iraq could no longer continue to be managed by the United States Armed Forces, and that any U.S. Military incursions out of agreed upon basing of U.S. Armed Forces would have to authorized by the Iraqi government.  As is the current practice, funds for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq have been approved by congressional acts (as the appropriation of U.S. funds must be legislated by the Congress of the U.S. as deemed by the Constitution).  If this practice were to continue under a SOFA, the SOFA should be deemed as a treaty or congressional-executive agreement, because the actions of the U.S. Armed Forces would go beyond the purview of a SOFA and enter the realm of a treaty or congressional-executive agreement.  However, congressional acts for the appropriation of funds to support the welfare of our Military Forces, in any place on Earth, or and other wise noted location of presence, should be approved forthright and freely, with oversight extending only too the proper and just allocation of such welfare.

I believe that, if the reader of this article has come this far, you are now able to understand the technicalities of The Situation, and moreso of it’s complication.  So, when the Democrats expouse that the President is seeking a treaty with Iraq, he may in fact be seeking a SOFA, which would not be a treaty, but it could be a treaty if it includes language that moves away from purely military manners, and in fact if it were to be considered a treaty, he could seek a congressional-executive agreement, which would need the House’s approval and only a majority of the Senate (51 votes), and not be a treaty.  What the Democrats should really be caring about, is how the current presence in Iraq is technically unlawful.

If you find my logic in error, you can either register and comment or email me.  I would be happy to change my stance (but not my grammar ) if I find your logic in better arrangement.