Several thousand demonstrators protested against the US in rallies across the country on Friday. The placard says: ’No agreement with US occupiers’
Posted on 06/09/2008 9:38:41 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Several thousand demonstrators protested against the US in rallies across the country on Friday. The placard says: ’No agreement with US occupiers’
American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.
According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement.
The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.
Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.
Among a litany of sticking-points surrounding the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries are Iraqi concerns over how many US bases will remain in the country and who will be in control of Iraqi air space.
Other flashpoints include whether private security companies working for US forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law and whether US soldiers will maintain the freedom to travel where they want, arrest people and conduct raids without first gaining approval from the Iraqi Government.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said that under the new deal US soldiers should be confined to the larger bases. “We do need the Americans to leave the cities and the streets,” he said. “They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.”
As for private security companies, “they should be subject to Iraqi law”, Mr al-Dabbagh said. The immunity of such firms that work for the military or the British or American embassies triggered outrage last year after security guards employed by Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a confrontation that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.
A status of forces agreement takes on average more than a year to conclude, but Washington hopes to seal the deal with Iraq by the end of July – a time-frame that the Iraqi side views with less importance than the content of the accord.
Sanctioning the continuing presence of US troops is hugely sensitive, with many Iraqis opposed to such a move. Iran has also voiced concern that the deal will enable Washington to use Iraq as a launch pad to conduct attacks in the region. Mr al-Maliki used a weekend trip to Tehran to try to calm the tensions. “We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and [other] neighbours,” he said.
The Iraqi Prime Minister will need to tread carefully to win the backing of his parliament for the pact and also ensure that the US side is satisfied.
Britain, which will have to sign its own bilateral accord with Iraq to legalise the presence of British troops in the country post2008, is watching the discussions with interest. London will use the US-Iraq arrangements for its own agreement.
The senior Iraqi official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the chief concern is that Iraq’s sovereignty is protected.
“President [Bush] has been in touch with the Prime Minister of Iraq and has said that the issues which are rejected or not approved by the Government of Iraq will be reconsidered and the future American presence will be for assisting and coordinating with the Iraqi Government,” he told The Times about the conversation, which took place last Thursday.
A senior US official in Baghdad said that such conferences between the two leaders were fairly frequent. “[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq’s sovereignty. The content, the positions we take in the negotiations, will reflect that,” the official said.
US diplomats have been meeting their Iraqi counterparts for the past two months to draw up the status of forces document as well as a strategic framework, which sketches out every aspect of the two countries’ relationship from security, politics and the economy to culture, science and education.
As part of the process, several Iraqi delegates are due to return this week from a fact-finding trip to some of more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, with which the United States already has a status of forces accord.
The Iraq-US pact, while based on the same principles of two sovereign nations, will differ slightly because of the need for US forces to be able to fight.
“The general premise though is that they operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgement of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,” the US official said.
IMO, that's what we should have done in the first place. Just like Germany in WWII. Some people don't understand anything else.
Carolyn
From what I’ve read US forces have trained the Iraqi military well. The recent successful sweep operations lead by the Iraqi Security Forces with support by their benefactors of the United States has shown they seemingly have come of age. I’m certain much improvement is necessary, but as discussion continues about reducing our presence in Iraq, and as Iraq belongs to the Iraqi’s, and we have never intimated Imperialistic tendencies, actually emphatically denying such when accused by our Leftist opposition around the World and within, I cannot see as to how we should be offended by complying with their request.
To not comply in favor of what is now our host’s wishes would be to invite overwhelming dissent amongst those whom could injure us Politically, and to leave Iraq as some suggest would invite our somewhat cocky host’s in Iraq to potential defeat at the hands of revitalized aggressors.
Unless there is something left out of the story here, I don’t see much wrong with the Iraqi’s requests, other than how they demand it, but then offensive blustering manner is the ME way.
Iraq is becoming peaceful in most areas, thanks to the hard work and dedication of our troops.
But the peace is very young yet and it doesn't hurt to have troops to monitor the situation, ensure that the stability will take a strong hold and be prepared to quell the inevitable flare-ups.
We don't need surge-level troops now, though. I believe some significant drawing down is scheduled to begin this summer.
Well I was off composing my post which is now at #22, and then went back to see other posts. I think you are correct.
Don't believe any of this until you hear FROM a reliable source directly involved in the negotiations.
The Iraqis should remember who won the war.
I agree. If the Iraqis think they are ready, by all means, lets fall back to our bases and let them handle things. Having said that, we need to make it absolutely clear that we will put up with no backsliding, PERIOD! If we think that things are getting out of hand somewhere, we'll be on it like white on rice.
American troops congregated in a small area makes for a big target.
Bad idea, IMHO.
These are the fruits of a flawed foreign policy.
America should never get involved in a foreign military operation except to directly protect Americans or American interests.
Protecting American interests should be the sole function of American foreign policy - NOT nation building or attempting to bring Democracy anywhere where it does not exist.
Bush was right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. He would have been right to invade Iran and Syria.
But he made a serious error thinking you can change the mind-set of these primitives without a prolonged and costly commitment in American lives and money. The re-education of these primitives, as long as they adhere to their 6th century creed is bound to be a most difficult process. The voting public has demonstrated time and again in America that they want no part of these lengthy commiments.
BUT AGAIN, thanks to Bush’s foreign policy failures, we ARE committed to remaining in Iraq as withdrwaing from the same would signal to the other lunatics in the Islamic world that we have lost face and fail to stand up to our promises. We can’t fail to view the big picture here.
And the big picture here is that the west is involved in a war for survival with Islam.
1. Go to war
2. War is hard
3. Leftists use the war to discredit the party in power by lying
4. Leftists get elected by being antiwar
5. Leftists cut and run because war is hard
6. Evil takes over, bad things happen
7. Chaos reigns for a generation
8. Leftists forget to accept responsibility
Options for using force in the next generation are going to become so difficult. If we go to war, it better get over in 90 days or forgetaboutit.
I hope this scenario does not come to fruition, but it would not surprise me in the least.
schu
Some might view your position as cruel. But history shows that your position results in the least loss of life on both sides and minimizes community damage. Your philosophy was the same as Reagan’s.
I’ll add to your comments that it should be done quickly (thus with overwhelming power). The Iraq war shows that the general public has a very short period of patience, no matter what kind of progress is being made.
Yes, in general this is media hype. The agreement will work out just fine and will be modeled on what exists in Japan and Germany and other countries with a Permanent US Military Presence.
In the century oil runs out, this is Bush genius.
Treaty ???
What part of unconditional surrender was not clear?
Go back in the barracks.
This is Iraq. It’s time we turned their country back to them and showed them we were serious about liberation, not occupation. If terrorism should rear its ugly head again, we can do what must be done. For the moment, the Iraqis need to stretch and build their newfound muscles.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Maybe a bit early, but it seems to me this should be the direction we should be moving in.
Of course progress aside, Obama will withdraw the troops, overthrow the current government in favor of a new UN sponsored regieme, and begin war crimes trials. Against who I don't know.
Before we live we should do a litttle cleaning - kill al-Sadr, his family and as much of the Mahdi Army’s and its political arm’s leadership as we can find, THEN leave. That will make things easier for the Iraqis in the future.
“Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana
***************************EXCERPT**********************
posted at 10:15 am on June 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Nouri al-Maliki sought to reassure his Iranian neighbors that an Iraqi-American security partnership would only concern defensive security. He promised that American bases in Iraq would not be used as launching pads for an American invasion of Iran, and that the Iraqis would not stand for such action based out of their country. The security partnership faces stiff opposition among National Assembly factions close to Tehran, and Maliki wants to get it passed this summer:
*******************************snip************************
Maliki will present evidence, however, that Iran uses its military to arm the Shi’ite militias operating in the south of Iraq. He plans to confront Tehran over its meddling. At the same time, the US announced the detention of a militia leader that smuggled arms and munitions out of Iran, disrupting for the moment a part of that network. Maliki will likely tell the Iranians that the best way to keep the US out of Iran is for Iran to stay out of Iraq.
It comes as no surprise that the Iraqis don’t want the US to stage an invasion of Iran from Iraq. The Iraqis tried launching a war against Iran at the combined cost of a million lives and eight years of destruction, to no avail. They don’t want to see a repeat of that, even as spectators, which Iran would ensure they wouldn’t be. Any security partnership between the US and Iraq would have that limitation regardless of who negotiates the treaty.
ROFL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.