Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells the US it wants all troops back in barracks
The Times (UK) ^ | June 9, 2008 | Deborah Haynes in Baghdad

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.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; iraq; mahdiarmy; sadr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: airborne

My thoughts exactly. If we put our troops in that situation they will be sitting ducks for every terrorists with mortars or rockets. As far as I am concerned we have already won the war, let the Iraqis mop up the terrorists and pull our troops back to the states right after we get a signed document that they have the situation under control and do not need our troops there anymore.


41 posted on 06/09/2008 11:41:50 AM PDT by Americanexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: livius

How do we even know they’re girls?...


42 posted on 06/09/2008 12:12:21 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty; The Pendleton 8: We are not going down without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StatenIsland

Except for the quote from Ali al-Dabbagh who is really the Iraqi government spokesman.


43 posted on 06/09/2008 12:12:35 PM PDT by dervish (Why is the post-racial candidate drawing 90+ percent of the Black vote?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

We hear so much contradictionary blabla out of Iraq. But it’s a safe bet that the truth is always somehthing different then the MSM tells.


44 posted on 06/09/2008 12:41:41 PM PDT by SolidWood (Refusal to vote for McCain is active support of Obama. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

“But history shows that your position results in the least loss of life on both sides and minimizes community damage.”

A current, real world model for your “kill everything” position is Chechnya. The Russians did indeed:

“...kill as many and destroy as much as is necessary to achieve this, “collateral damage” be DAMNED. If protest arises, armed or otherwise, you put it down IMMEDIATELY with extreme prejudice.”

In that case the damage to the community was extreme, the loss of life was far worse in proportion to the numbers of people caught up in the conflict, and fighting didn’t end because everything was destroyed.


45 posted on 06/09/2008 12:44:00 PM PDT by Owl558 (Pardon my spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat

My first thought when I saw this was the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut.


46 posted on 06/09/2008 12:46:10 PM PDT by airborne (LETS GO PENS!!! LETS GO PENS!!! LETS GO PENS!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Sounds good to me. They wouldn’t be calling for us to stick in our bases if they believed there was any sort of threat to public safety.

Besides, we must eventually do so, anyway. Just look at South Korea. We did return to our barracks and bases there.

I can also imagine just how big a sh@t the Iraqi leadership would cr@p if we actually took them up on the offer...

:-P


47 posted on 06/09/2008 3:01:16 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl558
There is, however, much less fighting going on...

...as there are not as many people left to wage the war.

If you rinse and repeat again and again, the fighting WILL stop, one way or the other (peace via negotiations or extermination).

48 posted on 06/09/2008 3:05:29 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Malaki has to appear to satisfy a majority of Iraqi to keep his current slight popularity in tack. However. We and they do have that little problem regarding the UN mandates.
It will be interesting to see this play out. If it turns out that only minority numbers are in protest of keeping our forces in situ, perhaps a transparent force agreement will come to past. The US congress is not at all happy on how things have gone. GWB has really keeped them out of the loop for the most part. More Repubs are siding with the demowits on this issue in it's varied reported provisions.
One thing not being voiced is the huge amount of reconstruction the US military still provides in so many divergent ways that would come to a stand still if we pull out engineering groups for instance. Now if we are to continue to help them rebuild, we have to provide sufficient of warriors to protect our engineering, medical, social reconstruction groups etc..
It is a sticky situation at best.
49 posted on 06/09/2008 5:53:32 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Duncan Hunter was our best choice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Shia posturing B.S.


50 posted on 06/09/2008 5:58:42 PM PDT by TADSLOS (The GOP death march to the gravesite is underway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRITinUSA
If this stands then we should immediately withdraw all US and private security forces.

I agree. That's why I'm not too concerned about all this. The Iraqi government will cave in knowing that they do not want the Iranians to fill the power vaccum if we leave prematurely.

51 posted on 06/09/2008 6:06:06 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
Iraq is becoming peaceful in most areas, thanks to the hard work and dedication of our troops.

Except for northern Iraq and Sadr City in Baghdad?

52 posted on 06/09/2008 6:10:42 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I see the Democrats have finally made it to Iraq, or their minions from Europe.


53 posted on 06/09/2008 6:45:43 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Allegra
OK, I've read through the items and one thing bothers me about this restriction on US troops. Maliki just ended a three day visit to Tehran. Hmmmm...

Just what bargain did he make with the Devil?
54 posted on 06/09/2008 9:06:54 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

You misrepresent my position. “Kill everything” (not my position) is quite different from “defeat the enemy with overwhelming power and quickly” (my position).

Chechnya is the perfect example of a vastly superior military entity going into a situation with insufficient force and spineless political resolve, and allowing the conflict to linger. Russia, which once owned half of Europe and was at one time our military equal, has managed to induce anger rather than respect by making Chechnya a police state rather than a war zone. Thus, it has become a slow, drawn out process that has been damaging to both sides.

And because the Russians have chosen to police rather than defeat Muslim extremism, they have only made the worldwide conflict with Muslims worse.

I guess its a matter of philosophy: would you consider Hiroshima to be a “kill everything” position, or a “defeat the enemy with overwhelming power and quickly” position?


55 posted on 06/10/2008 8:06:50 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: domenad

I agree with your post.


56 posted on 06/10/2008 8:15:53 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Kidd, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your position. I’m just looking for a current, real-world example of the kind of campaign you want us to wage. In fact, I tend to agree with you that a total war model is probably better than going in with minimal force.

Should there be a draft? Full mobilization?


57 posted on 06/10/2008 9:51:15 AM PDT by Owl558 (Pardon my spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Owl558; Nervous Tick

My original comment was made to poster Nervous Tick, in response to a general philosophy about warfare.

Nervous Tick made the point the warfare should be avoided as much as possible, but should be fully engaged if it is deemed necessary.

We are not fully engaged in Iraq...we have sufficient evidence that Iran is participating against us by proxy. A fully engaged war plan should not worry about borders. However, the political will to take on Iran is absent...thus the conflict in Iraq drags on.


58 posted on 06/10/2008 11:06:25 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: kidd; Owl558; Nervous Tick
This will likely have some influence:

Gulf Arabs eye Iraq role to counter Iran

And wouldn't they prefer to have American Troops in Iraq...

59 posted on 06/10/2008 11:27:28 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson