Middle East Features
US-Iraqi talks on forces agreement pressured from all sides
Jun 29, 2008, 12:13 GMT
Washington - The Bush administration hopes to work out an agreement soon with the Iraqi government that could establish the legal grounds for US forces to remain, amid worries that a potential deal could fuel Iraqi anger.
President George W Bush has sought to complete the deal by the end of July, ahead of the expiration at the end of 2008 of the UN mandate for US troops in Iraq.
The two countries have been in contentious discussions about the terms of the so-called status of forces agreement (SOFA). The United States has the similar deals with dozens of countries that host US forces, including Germany, Japan and South Korea.
But critics of the Bush administration efforts say that Iraq is different. They're concerned that the militant groups opposed to the US 'occupation' will view a SOFA as an opening for a long-term - or even permanent - US presence.
The Bush administration is seeking broad powers that would allow military operations without first informing the Iraqi government, plus the right to detain Iraqi citizens, legal immunity for US soldiers suspected of a crime and control of Iraqi airspace.
They are also working on a second, strategic framework agreement that would define the long-term economic, political and defence relationship between Washington and Baghdad.
Steven Simon, an expert on US policy in the Middle East at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, believes an agreement giving the US military such wide latitude could intensify resentments in Iraq, recalling the country's post-British colonial years.
Then, the Iraqi government signed a security arrangement with Britain that left a large number of foreign forces in the country. The deal left Iraqis inflamed, fuelling the movement that ousted the former monarchy.
'The way in which the United States has gone about pursuing an agreement has reminded Iraqis ... of their experience with the British,' Simon said.
Moqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite preacher who wields significant influence and commands a sizeable militia, has warned against the SOFA. Al-Sadr's order last year for his militias to stand down has contributed to the sharp drop in violence. But he has vowed to fight US forces if they are granted permission for a long-term stay.
Bush administration officials say the SOFA will not establish permanent US bases in Iraq or impact the country's sovereignty. They argue that a UN mandate is no longer appropriate because Iraq now has a democratically elected, independent government.
'The Iraqis understand that we have certain requirements, but we do want to be respectful of and responsive to their sovereignty concerns,' US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN earlier this month.
The negotiations have dragged on for months and have been held up by disagreements over Washington's insistence that US forces be able to operate freely, without advance discussions with Iraqi officials, and a demand to be able to detain Iraqi citizens.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has also rejected granting legal immunity to US soldiers and private military contractors. Washington has reportedly dropped the request for the contractors. Al-Maliki earlier this month declared that the negotiations had reached a dead end.
But some differences appear to have since been bridged. Bush and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, during a meeting Wednesday, stated that the talks were making progress and expressed confidence that an agreement could be reached.
'I think we have (had) very good, important steps toward reaching to finalize this agreement,' Talabani said. 'And we continue our struggle to our efforts to reach, ... very soon, this agreement.'
The Bush administration will likely face some opposition to the deal at home, too.
The opposition-controlled US Congress has insisted that it must approve any security arrangement with Iraq. The White House claims executive authority to complete the deal and has reportedly modified the wording so it does not appear to be a treaty, because the US Senate must approve any treat.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
(Bush has been running the United States as his own fiefdom, and Congress needs to take that power away from him and Cheney; and any other President who might follow. A vote for McCain would perpetuate the current scenario, as potentially fewer Republicans in Congress would lose their seats, impeding the redirection of this mess we call 'Iraq'. We've had a series of unilateral decisions that have ruined this country's reputation overseas, and even ended up with the Supreme Court having to make rulings to countermand the White House' direction. The balance in the Supreme Court will be another legacy which needs to be corrected in favor of fairness to all Americans; rather than propping up the agenda of a loud minority.)
Here's the Pentagon's own review of this colossal series of errors:
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/washington/29army.html?em&ex=1214884800&en=4 d963 6bb99326d75&ei=5087%0A
WASHINGTON — Soon after American forces toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, Gen. Tommy R. Franks surprised senior Army officers by revamping the Baghdad-based military command.
The decision reflected the assumption by General Franks, the top American commander for the Iraq invasion, that the major fighting was over. But according to a new Army history, the move put the military effort in the hands of a short-staffed headquarters led by a newly promoted three-star general, and was made over the objections of the Army’s vice chief of staff.
“The move was sudden and caught most of the senior commanders in Iraq unaware,” states the history, which adds that the staff for the new headquarters was not initially “configured for the types of responsibilities it received.”
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling of the Army ignited a debate when he wrote a magazine article that criticized American generals for failing to prepare a coherent plan to stabilize postwar Iraq.
In 2005, the RAND Corporation submitted a report to the Army, called “Rebuilding Iraq,” that identified problems with virtually every government agency that played a role in planning the postwar phase. After a long delay, the report is scheduled to be made public on Monday.
But the “On Point” report carries the imprimatur of the Army’s Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth. The study is based on 200 interviews conducted by military historians and includes long quotations from active or recently retired officers
...what I'm thinking???
Payback! Goddam, what an opportunity! Get them ALL in one swoop!
Do it George!:
Listen to that sage of learning, the NYT, who for 8 years has not got ONE single thing right! Negotiate the sh-ttiest f--king treaty in history and leave it for the next guy!
Make every sh-tty concession!
TAKE every crappy suggestion.
Roll on EVERY point!
Do it George! Do it and leave it for the dem Congress to deal with, just like they did with you, sitting on Iraq for EIGHT years while fatboy got his cork bobbed! Do it Gedorge! You, of all people, deserve this! F--k them in the ass! Leave the detractors with the sh-ttiest, most unworkable deal in history!
God punishes you by answering your prayers.
George Bush is not God.
After all, God would have mercy...
Considering:'The balance in the Supreme Court will be another legacy which needs to be corrected in favor of fairness to all Americans; rather than propping up the agenda of a loud minority.'
The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic limited in its action by the Constitution that created it. The entire point of the Constitution is to protect the RIGHTS of minorities, even if those minorities are unpopular in the eyes of another minority, or even a majority. Mind you, the smallest possible minority is the minority of one. So, the intent of the Constitution is to protect the rights of each and everyone of its citizens.
RE:
SP4: George! Are you thinking...Jun 29th, 2008 - 16:24:47
...what I'm thinking???
Payback! Goddam, what an opportunity! Get them ALL in one swoop!
===================================
(Assuming that last post was not someone spoofing the imbecile)
John McCain--Bold-Faced Liar or Dementia victim?
...for 7 years, Bush has been branded a unilateralist. What would be the result of him simply rolling over on all of these concessions??? Isn't that the intent of multilateralism: to accomdate all parties? Isn't that the contention here?
We are told the dems intend to pull out after they win, so why would anyone object??? What objection would they have, unless they are lying about their intentions on this war...?
This seems to me to be a pretty good case of never being happy. Then again, a liberal can be defined as someone who is never happy...
Be glad I'm not Bush..I'd sign this f--ker in the blink of an eye and make it effective Jan 20, 2009! Then I'd hand out my suggestion for the Bush T-Shirt: it says 'Blow me!'
SP4 appears to have forgotten his own drivel:
-------
Payback! Goddam, what an opportunity! Get them ALL in one swoop!
Do it George!:
Listen to that sage of learning, the NYT, who for 8 years has not got ONE single thing right! Negotiate the sh-ttiest f--king treaty in history and leave it for the next guy! Make every sh-tty concession! TAKE every crappy suggestion. Roll on EVERY point!
------
If Bush were to follow your cretinous lead (about the only option he has worse than his own), he'd be violating his own policies - one thing about idiots like both he and you is that they never learn anything; or change anything. By end of Bush's term there won't be any substantial drawdown of troops, and we will have more in Afghanistan (where we SHOULD have been in the first place).
www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1413796.php/Pent agon_says_Taliban_has_regrouped_with_resilience
'One report, which focuses on progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan, says the Taliban is a 'resilient insurgency' and is expected to expand its challenges to the Afghan government.
The studies, the first installment of a new series of semi-annual progress reports required by Congress, describe a 'fragile' security environment in much of the country, according to a summary posted by the Pentagon.
The report projects that the Taliban is 'likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings' this year, and move beyond the south and east, which have seen the most violent fighting since the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban was ousted from power in 2001.'
--------
The Pentagon's own 700 page report tells us in detail where Bush's team screwed up. Why, at this late date, would be do anything RIGHT? Did he have a judgment infusion in Europe, where he avoided dealing with the floods in the Midwest? Those floods will raise food prices, as the crops (and even cropland) were washed away. Where's the plan for recovery? In the same drawer as the plan for Katrina?
It's always instructive to watch one idiot giving another guidance.
---------
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-levees27-2008jun27,0,2625 050.story
As the waters in the Midwest recede and an early tally of the region's devastating floods reaches billions of dollars, some communities are blaming their woes on the federal government, saying it turned its back on their pleas for help building or bolstering the barriers protecting them from the Mississippi River and other waterways.
Federal rules require communities to help pay for projects that can cost millions, which can put them out of reach. In Iowa, where 71% of the 949 towns have populations of fewer than 1,000, those rules can be a forbidding obstacle.
So some Midwestern towns built their own flood protection, adding to an aging patchwork system of varying quality.
State officials in the Midwest say their budgets are too tight to create a uniform system for every waterway, and look enviously at California, which is spending $5 billion in bond money to double Sacramento's flood protection over the next decade.
'That's almost as much as our entire state budget,' said Richard Leopold, director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
RE:'We are told the dems intend to pull out after they win, so why would anyone object??? What objection would they have, unless they are lying about their intentions on this war...?'
They were lying and they started lying about it well before the surge. They had three reasons to lie. Most Americans had begun to ask if we should be engaged in nation building. This was something that the Goopers griped about The Clintons doing in Bosnia and Somalia. The other reason was the hard left wing of the Democrat Party, all of whom were opposed to the war from its very outset. The third reason was to cause the Bush Administration, ie, partisan politics.
They will take whatever deal President Bush makes for them while negotiating this Status of Forces Agreement. Why? Because it is the easy way out. They do not want to be seen as being weak on terrorism and defense.
Besides, they have obligated themselves to carry on the war in Afghanistan. If they try the old flippity-flopity fu on that one they'll get clobbered at the polls.
...you went from Iraq to floods in Iowa. I suppose Bush is now supposed to build an Ark???
The US forces should stay in Iraq forever for all we Europeans care.
...'let them eat cake'...
a vaunted history...
(Just one more failure in a litany of failures - Peace in the Mideast, capturing bin Laden, defeat of the Taliban threat, the economy, the deficit, and nearly everything else. The oil companies are doing fine, thanks, with the Hunt Oil deal now making the headlines)
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th& oref=slogin
BAGHDAD — Declaring that there will not be “another colonization of Iraq,” Iraq’s foreign minister raised the possibility on Wednesday that a full security agreement with the United States might not be reached this year, and that if one was, it would be a short-term pact.
American officials, speaking anonymously because of the delicate state of negotiations, said they were no longer optimistic that a complete security agreement could be reached by the year’s end.
At a news conference in Baghdad, the foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told reporters that some headway had been made, but that negotiators were deadlocked over issues like the extent of Iraqi control over American military operations and the right of American soldiers to detain suspects without the approval of Iraqi authorities.
Negotiations are complicated by political currents in both countries. Iraqi officials facing elections in the fall do not want to be seen as capitulating to the United States. At the same time, they are eager for some form of agreement to prevent any rapid departure of American forces.
American officials, speaking anonymously because of the delicate state of negotiations, said they were no longer optimistic that a complete security agreement could be reached by the year’s end.
Bush may just sign this stinker, and leave the next president holding the bag. God, wouldn't it just be the bomb for Obama to be hamstrung by this???
Yer gotta agree with SP4, its the perfect stink bomb for all you libs who cannot understand that when guided missiles (planes) kill your kin you strike back. Good for you that think its ok to pretend, it wasn't yours so its ok, lets let it slide...who cares? A generation ago this would not have stood.
Lol...too funny, who wants to be the first to ask Ohbama what he intends to do now that the Haige has called Sudans bluff on its genocidal ways and called him an enemy of humanity?
page: 1
Francisco SantanderJun 29th, 2008 - 13:41:42
From the article:''The opposition-controlled US Congress has insisted that it must approve any security arrangement with Iraq. The White House claims executive authority to complete the deal and has reportedly modified the wording so it does not appear to be a treaty, because the US Senate must approve any treaty.''
The President of the United States is not a King. He has no divine right to rule. If he negotiates an agreement which places the resources of the citizenry of the United States at the disposal of another governments or obliges the United States to act in the interests of a people who are not citizens of the United States, then he is negotiating a treaty. The citizens of the United States possess the right to approve of or to disapprove of such agreements through their duly elected representatives in the Senate of the United States. President Bush's actions in this matter, well intentioned or not, are a dangerous attempt at the usurpation of power that is not rightly his to wield.
The Democrats, wrongheaded or not, have every right and even the duty to oppose this usurpation. President Bush will never be President again. He should not presume to hand unconstitutional powers to his successors, most of whom he will never know.
Report this comment