Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in congressional testimony yesterday that the agreement "will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq."
Democrats have said that Bush is seeking to tie the hands of a new administration by negotiating a broad military commitment to Iraq. The agreement, targeted for completion this summer, is designed to replace a U.N. mandate sanctioning the U.S. troop presence that ends Dec. 31.
I'm not so sure that we need to have a formal treaty or Senate approval even if it did contain security commitments, given the large number of agreements we have around the world that fall short of treaty status. But in the current environment this is wise.
But as long as our troops are deployed properly, our right to defend ourselves will suffice nicely even without a formal agreement. Put three brigades at Basra and two east of Baghdad and Iranians will have to go through our units to defeat Iraq. United States Army units on the ground will be far more powerful as a deterrent than a formal pledge to defend Iraq in the hands of a president whose supporters will never fulfill that pledge.
