Iraq says near agreement with US on military pact

AFP ^ | July 2, 2008 23 hours ago | AFP

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

BAGHDAD (AFP) — Iraq said on Wednesday it was on the verge of agreeing a controversial pact with the United States to govern US troop levels and ground rules in the nation beyond 2008 when a UN mandate expires.

Tough negotiations between Washington and Baghdad on the security deal has made recent progress and an initial framework arrangement is "almost finalised," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told a press briefing.

"We are talking about a strategic framework agreement that will improve cooperation between Iraq and the United States on a whole range of issues... We have almost finalised the document."

In Washington, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on Zebari's remarks but said "negotiations are continuing on a regular basis."

Zebari also said that Jordan's King Abdullah II will visit to Iraq soon in what would be the first trip by an Arab head of state since the US-led invasion of March 2003.

No date has been set for the visit, which follows Jordan's appointment on Monday of an ambassador to Baghdad, but Zebari hailed the visit as a sign of growing regional confidence in Iraq.

"It is very encouraging and shows greater confidence in the country," he said.

Washington has been urging its Arab allies, notably regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia, to send ambassadors and officials to Baghdad to help bolster support for Iraq's mainly Shiite and Kurd leadership.

That diplomatic push comes amid the complex and difficult security negotiations Baghdad and Washington are trying to conclude before a July 31 deadline.

The security agreement aims to set down the ground rules for a continuing US troop presence in Iraq after the December expiry of the UN mandate governing the presence of foreign soldiers in the country.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Iraqis fiercely oppose a large American troop presence, but at the same time want a guarantee that Washington will defend their soil from foreign invasion.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now ...From the LA Times:

Iraq official cites progress on U.S. security pact

*****************************EXCERPT************************

Any accord would be short-term and bar permanent bases, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari says.

By Doug Smith and Raheem Salman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 3, 2008

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's foreign minister said Wednesday that concessions by both sides had advanced the prospects for a new security agreement needed for U.S. forces to remain in the country beyond the end of the year.

Seeking to dispel criticism that the agreement would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the opposition was based on "misrepresentations, confusion and politicizing."

The agreement being negotiated would be in effect only one or two years and it would not sanction any permanent U.S. bases, Zebari said at a news conference.

"That's why this is not, as it has been misrepresented, another colonization of Iraq binding Iraq to a colonial agreement like the British Anglo-Iraqi agreement of the 1930s," he said.

Zebari indicated that progress had been made on several thorny issues, including the existing immunity from prosecution for the U.S. military and private contractors and the internment of Iraqi citizens by U.S. forces.

[RedRover]

It’s the old liberty/security thing. The important thing is to get a framework in place. It’ll make the squealing of the moonbats even more irrelevant than it already is.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Iraq related thread :

Sunnis close to joining Iraqi government

[B4Ranch]

>The security agreement aims to set down the ground rules for a continuing US troop presence in Iraq after the December expiry of the UN mandate governing the presence of foreign soldiers in the country.<

The damned fools that we have become, we can’t even fight a war these days without the UN telling us how to do it! Our politicians who gave away our spirit need to be hung! We allowed the UN to hold a tight grip over our air tactics in North Viet Nam and we lost that war. When will we learn?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the Blogosphere ...(JAWA Reports):

It seems that the Americans know what they are doing ...

***********************EXCERPT********************

Stunning op-ed in the WSJ today. You really have to read it all, but here's a teaser:

"I am from Fallujah" says one man – an art agent – with a cigar ever between his fingers. "We should make the most benefit from the Americans while we can. It is a moment of history. We either get a state now, or we will always be like this."

"The problem," responds a Baghdad printing house owner whose origins go back to the southern tribes, "is that since the day of the fall of the idol [Saddam's statue] people are asking who will rule us now. A disgusting question it is. It does not matter who rules, it matters how they rule." ...

She told me "it seems that the Americans know what they are doing. They have been so patient with us, but it seems that we have learned our lesson now."

Wow, it seems that Iraqis are more optimistic about our long term success in Iraq than are most Americans. Food for thought.

[avacado]

"The damned fools that we have become, we can’t even fight a war these days without the UN telling us how to do it! "

That particular UN mandate gave us the right to be in Iraq and to see things through. It's one of the only decent mandates from the UN and one that the MSM, Democrats, and moonbats don't like to discuss or mention. It expires this coming December so we need the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) in place before the UN mandate expires.

[B4Ranch]

We shouldn’t be asking anyones permission to be in Iraq except the Iraqi people.

[avacado]

"We shouldn’t be asking anyones permission to be in Iraq except the Iraqi people."

Don't shoot the messenger! I was just explaining what that particular UN mandate was about and why they are drawing up the SOFA.

[B4Ranch]

>Don’t shoot the messenger!<

I am not yelling at you. There’s no good reason for us to support the UN or any of it’s plans, such as AGENDA 21, WHICH MOST AMERICANS ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT.

[KantianBurke]

And if they tell us to leave? What if its in our interest to stay over their objections? What then?

[Kaslin]

Would you mind explaining your tag-line, what happened?

[KantianBurke]

In late October of 2006 an Iraqi born Army reservist leaves the safety of the Green Zone in Baghdad to visit his Iraqi wife. Dumb move which ends with Mahidi insurgents kidnapping him. Initially the Army seals off parts of the city looking for him. Sadr and Maliki demand that the barricades be lifted “or else.” The 2006 election is just days away and having Baghdad eurpt wouldn’t help with voters so the order is given to stand down. In essense Specialist Qusai, an American soldier serving his country, was sacrificed for short term electoral gain which didn’t materialize anyway. Bush bots were quite inept at providing excuses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103100225.html

To this day, he is still missing.

[B4Ranch]

Explain why it would be in our interest to stay in a country where everyone is against us? #1 We aren’t dictators, so we should leave if the majority wants us to. #2 If you think 9/11 was bad, imagine what would be coming down the trail for us.

[Kaslin]

I hope you noticed the article is from the Washington Compost, and it is well known that the Compost is not, nor has it ever been pro President Bush. Not that I don’t believe it happened, but I take almost anything from the Compost with a grain of salt. Especially something like that

[Allegra]

And if they tell us to leave?

Believe me...the Iraqis aren't stupid. They know as well as we do what would happen if we left and they really don't want that at all.

[Allegra]

Explain why it would be in our interest to stay in a country where everyone is against us?

Everyone is against us??

In Iraq??

Which Iraq do you visit? It sure isn't that way in the one I hang out in.

[B4Ranch]

You were the one who asked, “And if they tell us to leave?”

I simply assume that was a majority vote. If the majority want us to leave then we should leave.

[Allegra]

You were the one who asked, “And if they tell us to leave?”

Actually, I didn't. I was responding to someone else who asked that.

[Allegra]

If the majority want us to leave then we should leave.

I agree. But the majority doesn't want us to leave. When they say no "permanent" bases, it's all about semantics.

These agreements refer to "enduring" bases. "Permanent" sounds too...permanent while "enduring" has a nice, indefinite, open-ended sound to it.