New Plan Would Let Iraq Order Troops Out

AP ^ | 6/4/04 | EDITH M. LEDERER,

[TexKat]

UNITED NATIONS - The United States and Britain revised their Security Council resolution on transferring sovereignty to Iraq on Friday, giving the country's new interim government authority to order the U.S.-led multinational force to leave at any time.

The previous draft introduced Tuesday declared the council's readiness to terminate the force's mandate by January 2006 or at the request of the transitional government formed after elections held by Jan. 31, 2005.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that the incoming government wants the multinational force to stay to prevent civil war, and he told The Associated Press on Friday that he could not foresee its departure before power is transferred to the transitional government early next year.

The revised draft circulated to Security Council members includes what Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have stated publicly — that American and British troops will leave if asked.

It declares that the council will terminate the mandate for the multinational force after elections held by Dec. 31, 2005, or earlier "if requested by the sovereign government of Iraq."

[Howlin]

consisted of their biting their tongues and doing what they were told.

What a novel idea, being that they were in the military and that IS their job.

[yonif]

What's the point of going to the UN again? The UN was showed the door when the US wanted to go into Iraq, so why is the US trying to show legitimacy once more to the UN?

[ZULU]

"The United States and Britain revised their Security Council resolution on transferring sovereignty to Iraq on Friday, giving the country's new interim government authority to order the U.S.-led multinational force to leave at any time."

WHY did we go there? To be forced to leave at the whim of any government which constitutes itself?

What about Iran and its nuclear weapons program?

What about Syria and the assistance being renedered to worldwide terrorists?

What about the WMD which might very well still be buried somewhere in that desolation?

Suppose the Baathists take over again, free Saddam, put him back in power, and tell us to go home???

Amazing.

[Who dat?]

What a novel idea, being that they were in the military and that IS their job.

I think it’s sort of interesting that following orders constitutes a “military decision,” no?

[nuffsenuff]

I frequent another board (which shall remain nameless) and the libs are trying to spin it so badly.

One guy was like "We don't have to spin this since its what Kerry has been calling for all along."

I was like, "Oh they'll spin it. Or they are going to have to drop it off the stump speech. And you know they aren't going to do that."

This little concession has them at a loss... For that alone it's worth it.

[TexKat]

The UN was showed the door when the US wanted to go into Iraq, so why is the US trying to show legitimacy once more to the UN?

It appears that there are others that are not happy with the UN and or their actions or non-actions.

Television footage shows a United Nations vehicle burning in Kinshasa on June 3, 2004. Thousands of rioters attacked U.N. compounds across Democratic Republic of Congo on Thursday, furious that U.N. troops had not stopped renegade soldiers seizing the eastern town of Bukavu. (Reuters Tv/Reuters)

[StriperSniper]

Invite Kerry, Kennedy, and Daschle to the victory parade. Give them US flags to wave. It'll be a hoot.

Give 'em a lighter too, tempt them. ;-)

[CatoRenasci]

As long as, if we're asked to leave, we go via Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, stopping to clean up the messes there on our way.

[RobbyS]

Since last summer the State Department and the CIA , not DoD have been calling the shots. People forget who Bremer is.

[txrangerette]

We recognize THIS government. The
other scenario, and all bets would
be off. Talk about alarmist...

[Who dat?]

Perhaps I’m nitpicking, but when I hear reports (at the time) and speeches (after the fact) that “military leaders on the ground made the decision to (whatever)” and that it was a “military decision,” and then later it comes out that rather than actually being a military decision, they were simply doing what they’d been told, it strikes me as odd. Not odd that they’d do what they’re told, but odd that they’d be portrayed as the ones that came up with it.

Also wasn’t aware that the Iraqi Governing Council made military decisions with respect to the USMC and where they are deployed and what they do (though it would explain a good many things). In fact, it sounds like a 100% pure political decision (to all resign unless Marines get out) to me.

The “biting their tongues and doing what they were told” is a direct quote from the retired Marine on the radio. It implies, to me (implies hell – he flat out said Marines were disgusted and flat-out peeved over it), that they were doing what they were told without liking doing it. That implies, to me, that they would have much preferred doing things differently. That, in turn, implies that if they’d been left to make decisions on their own, this particular one wouldn’t have been chosen.

So all in all it sounds like a misrepresentation of the facts to say the Marines made a military decision in this instance, at the very least. That’s all…

[Magnum44]

I think it’s sort of interesting that following orders constitutes a “military decision,” no?

When GWB says it was a military decision, that is true. CentCom is responsible for all actions in Iraq. The POTUS vests CentCom with a very broad set of goals (liberate the Iraqi people, provide security for the new Iraqi government, etc) and it is up to CentCom to decide how to best carry this out. The Area Combatant Commanders, next to the president himself, are arguably the most powerful individuals in the world. Most media and general citizenry don't understand this.

the State Department and the CIA , not DoD have been calling the shots...

No, CentCom has been calling the shots. And he answers only to SecDef and POTUS. If anyone, CIA, State, anyone, wants to operate in his theatre, they better have his permission.

[Imal]

If anyone, CIA, State, anyone, wants to operate in his theatre, they better have his permission.

Thanks for a good laugh. I needed that.

[Dog]

Ken didn't that article say we are pulling 2 divisions out of Germany?

[Magnum44]

A great deal of effort is spent to avoid blue-on-blue engagements. That includes inter-agency involvement. At some level, perhaps very high up, even CIA is plugged into and part of CentComs plans.

The Area Commander is in fact the one who defines what his military, intel, and political needs are to accomplish his goals within his area of responsibility. DoD supporting commands and 'other' government agencies work for the area commanders. He is their customer. They have no reason to exist without him.

[RobbyS]

DoD may be implementing the policy, but it is a policy that has the hands of State all over it. If this were in deed an total DoD show, then a Generalissimo would be in charge, not an ambassador

[Magnum44]

I was referring to the military decisions being discussed, specifically what has transpired in Falluja. POTUS wears the hat of both CinC and Statesman. As has been pointed out by others, it is correct that DoD implements, and does not set, policy.

[bikepacker67]

Big whoop... the Pope is a Pro-Life Democrat.

[TN4Liberty]

I’ll go back through my transcript when I get time. I somehow *clearly* remember Bush stating that the decision to withdraw came from the Marines – that they made a military decision to handle it the way they did.

I honestly don't remember that at all. I remember that the US knew we could take the city at any time, and we held back because we didn't want a massacre that would turn the civilian population against us. Perhaps you are confusing this with the decision to consolidate to defensible positions within the city to hold their gains. I do remember that happening, since the US basically controlled the travel corridors within the city.

[Imal]

I'm not saying CentCom isn't master of his domain, but you and I both know that CIA and other TLAs can't share everything with him.

As for blue-on-blue, we know they're tight about that, but the truth is that a lot of our intelligence assets are cherry red.

That's what I was laughing at, not CentCom's mastery over his domain.

The world already knows full well who owns Iraq, and it ain't the bad guys.