EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Security Talks With Iraq in Trouble in Baghdad and DC
BAGHDAD - A proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would set the conditions for a defense alliance and long-term U.S. troop presence appears increasingly in trouble, facing growing resistance from the Iraqi government, bipartisan opposition in Congress and strong questioning from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
President Bush is trying to finish the agreement before he leaves office, and senior U.S. officials insist publicly that the negotiations can be completed by a July 31 target date. The U.S. is apparently scaling back some of its demands, including backing off one that particularly incenses Iraqis, blanket immunity for private security contractors.
But meeting the July 31 deadline seems increasing doubtful, and in Baghdad and Washington there is growing speculation that a United Nations mandate for U.S.-led military operations in Iraq may have to be renewed after it expires at the end of 2008.
On Capitol Hill, top Democrats and Republicans complain that Bush is rushing the negotiations to try to tie his successor's hands.
Six senators, including the chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees and their ranking minority members have written Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the past week asking for transparency in the negotiations and more briefings. White House, State Department and Pentagon officials briefed lawmakers and staff members on the talks Tuesday.
"There's a tremendous amount of concern up here about the state of these negotiations. ... It's been expressed repeatedly," said a senior congressional staffer, who requested anonymity. He noted that their appeared to be growing talk in Iraq of simply extending the U.N. mandate.
A spokesman for Obama (D-Ill) said any long-term U.S. security commitment to Iraq must be subject to Congressional approval; alternatively the administration should seek an extension of the current UN mandate. Obama wants a new administration to make it "absolutely clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq," said spokesman Bill Burton.
Some Iraqi parliamentarians are now saying that Iraq has a third option besides extending the U.N. mandate or agreeing to the proposed Status of Forces Agreement: telling the Americans to go home.
"By December Iraq has to decide what to do," said Sami al Askari, a Shiite lawmaker who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. "If we are put in a corner...we have three options, not just two." Askari said the U.S. side is "keen to sign it early" but has to be "realistic and deal with the issues that are very sensitive for the Iraqis."
On Tuesday, Ambassador David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top advisor on Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad that both the Iraqis and Americans were on track to agree and that the U.S. was respecting Iraq's sovereignty during negotiations.
"We're confident it can be achieved, and by the end of July deadline," Satterfield said. "It's doable, that's where our focus is, not on alternatives...We're focused on plan A because we believe plan A can succeed."
He spoke less than 24 hours after an unnamed senior U.S. official told the Associated Press that the deal may not be completed before Bush leaves office next January. Satterfield bristled when questioned about the "unnamed official" and insisted that the talks were on track for completion July 31.
Iraqi lawmakers say the Bush administration is demanding concessions that are unacceptable, among them: dozens of semi-permanent bases from which U.S. forces can launch missions with no prior consent from Iraq's government; complete immunity for U.S. troops and security contractors; control of Iraq's air space; and no guarantees the United States will defend Iraq against a foreign attack.
The United States has portrayed opposition to the agreement as limited to Iranian officials and followers of radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, who opposes the U.S. occupation. But the chorus of rejection is growing.
"There is only one agenda for us-we need foreign troops because our forces are not capable yet to defend Iraq inside and outside of Iraq," al Askari said. But when Iraq reaches the point it can defend itself, "That's it, no more foreign troops on our soil," he added.
"It seems from the draft (agreement) and from the discussions that the Americans have something else in their mind, for instance fighting Al Qaida or terrorism. That's why they want a free hand in arresting any Iraqi. But the Iraqis say, 'no you don't have the free hand'."
In interviews this week, majority Shiite legislators told McClatchy Newspapers that the U.S.-proposed draft agreement is unacceptable and, given the way negotiations are going, they did not see them being complete by July 31.
The majority of Iraqi politicians support some kind of security agreement with the United States and the presence of some U.S. forces, although on their terms.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq's government has reached the point of decision.
"Time is of the essence," he said. "There is a need for a clear political decision ... Either the Iraqis want this or they don't want it." Maliki signed a declaration of principles for the accord last November, Zebari noted. "It hasn't come out of a vacuum or out of the blue."
Iraq wants an agreement in which U.S. soldiers stay on bases outside of the cities; the United States does not control its air space; and acts only if Iraq asks for help.
Strobel reported from Washington.
© McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
19 Comments so far
Show AllHow about no agreement, throw the US troops and mercenaries out of the country, blow up the fortress er "embassy", close the military bases, and break relations with U.S. oil companies?
Let the Iraqis handle Iraq. US out now, take all that wasted money and put it into renewable energy developement.
"Some Iraqi parliamentarians are now saying that Iraq has a third option besides extending the U.N. mandate or agreeing to the proposed Status of Forces Agreement: telling the Americans to go home"
One can only hope...
Of course that means blackwater rapist thugs coming home to a neighborhood near you...
This is America's idea of bringing democracy to Iraq, removing a tyrant, freedom for Iraqis!? Bullshit.
America needs to leave.
it's time to come home......BUSH wants to help the defense industry even after he has left office.....WITH ONE LAST GIFT
The title of this write-up is quite INTERESTING: "US SECURITY talks with Iraq in trouble In Baghdad and DC". The term "security" is ambiguious and not at all explained. Whose "security" are the writers talking about? Is it "SECURITY OF AMERICAN GREED" or "SECURITY OF AMERICAN BLOOD-THIRST"?
The US government and the American people lied openly to the entire world and invaded Iraq presenting themselves as the "liberators". They "sold" their malicious plan in the name of democracy and freedom, and thus called the invasion of a sovereign country as the "operation Iraqi freedom". So far the American Christian terrorists have killed more than ONE MILLION innocent owners of the land of Iraq and destroyed personal, family and state property. The INVADERS drove more than TWO MILLION owners of the land out of their own land (We see here a parallel with the massacre of Native Americans and occupation of their land by the European Christian colonists). Maj Gen Eldon Bargewell in his report after Hadita messacre said that the marines thought "Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as US lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes".
The world is well aware that the US (and UK) has invaded Iraq to plunder its natural resources and occupy the land. For this they are butchering innocent Iraqis, thus creating Iraqi holocaust. Now "the liberators" are no longer talking about "liberation of Iraq" but "victory in Iraq". That means passage of new laws such as Iraqi oil law. Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not only be opened to foreign oil exploration, but the executives of the transnational oil companies such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants would actually be among the board of directors of the new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves. The Iraq's own national oil company would become just another competitor. The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts.
Now the AMERICAN INVADERS want to use the land of Iraq to invade other sovereign countries and kill millions of innocent civilians. These terrorists expect unhindered free reign for all these "missions": "dozens of semi-permanent bases from which U.S. forces can launch missions with no prior consent from Iraq's government; complete immunity for U.S. troops and security contractors; control of Iraq's air space; and no guarantees the United States will defend Iraq against a foreign attack."
Do you see the parallels: LIES, MASSACRE, and PLUNDER.
This reminds Arundhati Roy's words about the American Imperial Democracy: "Here we are, confronted with an Empire that has conferred upon itself the right to go to war at will, and the right to deliver people from corrupting ideologies, from religious fundamentalists, dictators, sexism, and poverty by the age-old, tried-and-tested practice of extermination. Empire is on the move, and Democracy is its sly new war cry. Democracy home-delivered to your doorstep by daisy-cutters. Death is a small price for people to pay for the privilege of sampling this new product: Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy (boil, oil, and bomb)."
The Americans want to complete these "security talks", so that they can launch attacks on Iran from Iraqi soil, which in turn will lead to a war between Iran and Iraq. This, in turn, will give American terrorists a reason to leave Iraq, and stand in the sidelines and watch the war between Iran and Iraq.
EVIL AND WICKEDNESS AT THE CORE OF AMERICAN LIFE, SOCIETY, AND THE GOVERNMENT.
Looks like the puppet Iraq "government" is balking at the strings.
Looks like the options are an indepentent country, or a US puppet state.
Unfortunately, no one seems to notice that, as with everything else in Iraq, the Iraqis are going to do what they want, when they want. When Shia and Sunni lay down their arms, there will be relative peace. If they continue to take them up, Iraqis (and Americans) will die by the dozens. This has nothing to do with the "alleged" Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Regardless, the fortunes of Iraq will turn on Iraqi decisions made in Baghdad and Najaf, not in Washington, D.C. nor the halls of Congress. As the Iraqi delusion with this agreement reflects, continued peace in Iraq lies in the hands of Iraqis. It cannot -- and will not -- be forced by Americans at the point of a gun or through backdoor arm twisting.
Skipping all the details, Bush will get his way.
Not because he is right; he has never been right where Iraq is concerned. When you start hearing Iraqi parliamentary members talking about the "3rd Option" of telling the U. S. leave, you know they're talking through their hats.
They know that their Prime Minister doesn't have the power to lead; he proved that with his failure in March when attempting to rid Basra of Shiite militia.
Who's the alternative? al-Sadr? He huffs and he puffs but he's not blowing any doors down. They may bitch and gripe, they may complain about what our presence has done to their infrastructure and caused needless death to innocent citizens. All in all, they have for so long just used us as a crutch, they can't walk without us.
But,my friends (as John McCain would say). No need to fret; given the opportunity, we can do the same thing to Iran. What's another 4,000 U. S. military lives? And we don't even want to think about the billions of dollars.
If we don't spend it in military actions and foreign aid, we'd just find ways to waste it domestically on foolish things like universal health care, education, and God only knows what..
Let's get real, people!
And, if I only type in my comments once, why are they showing up twice?. It is not my intention to make my fellow Common Dreams readers miserable twofold
I've given up completely on the "30 minute time limit & you didn't write this" crap that nobody wants to explain to me.
And, last but not least, "Yo, Kem Patrick, wherever you are"
Skipping all the details, Bush will get his way.
Not because he is right; he has never been right where Iraq is concerned. When you start hearing Iraqi parliamentary members talking about the "3rd Option" of telling the U. S. leave, you know they're talking through their hats.
They know that their Prime Minister doesn't have the power to lead; he proved that with his failure in March when attempting to rid Basra of Shiite militia.
Who's the alternative? al-Sadr? He huffs and he puffs but he's not blowing any doors down. They may bitch and gripe, they may complain about what our presence has done to their infrastructure and caused needless death to innocent citizens. All in all, they have for so long just used us as a crutch, they can't walk without us.
But,my friends (as John McCain would say). No need to fret; given the opportunity, we can do the same thing to Iran. What's another 4,000 U. S. military lives? And we don't even want to think about the billions of dollars.
If we don't spend it in military actions and foreign aid, we'd just find ways to waste it domestically on foolish things like universal health care, education, and God only knows what..
Let's get real, people!
From the caption under the photo: "Maliki has tried to reassure Iran over a planned security pact with Washington, vowing Iraq would never allow the use of its territory to "harm" the Islamic republic."
I'm unsure why the word harm is in quotation marks, unless it is to emphasise the gross understatement when it really means nuke -- but anyway...
Maliki can say or think what he likes, but I am quite sure the Iranians are under no illusions that the Big White Father in Washington is actually going request his permission. Who the hell does he think he is, the Prime Minister or something?
Now we can watch as the Bushies don't respect the wishes of the Iraqi people, and show what this occupation is about...forceful conquering of a sovereign nation to promote the interests of the corporate masters.
Don't forget that one of the main reasons that the U.S. wants unrestricted dominion of Iraqi airspace is to grant it to the Israelis, for when they attack Iran. The Israelis are not going to get permission from Syria or Saudi Arabia, and flying over Turkey (assuming that the Turks granted permission, which is highly doubtful) is too far to hit Najaf in any event. The Iraqi airspace is therefore key to the mischief-making that the U.S. and Israel want to continue to engage in, in the Middle East, and therefore there will not be a handing back of Iraqi air-sovereingty to the Iraqis. Nope, the Iraqis are going to have to fight for their independence, althought the enemy that they will be fighting will be the enemy within: the U.S. occupiers.
Maybe the expiration of the mandate and Obama in office will be the end of this adventure. McCain will call it "surrender", but leaving Iraq will have a much better legal basis than the invasion.
" pontificatinpapa June 11th, 2008 5:17 pm
Skipping all the details, Bush will get his way."
Bush is not trying his way; he's a puppet on strings.
"...
They know that their Prime Minister doesn't have the power to lead; he proved that with his failure in March when attempting to rid Basra of Shiite militia.
Who's the alternative? al-Sadr? He huffs and he puffs but he's not blowing any doors down. They may bitch and gripe, they may complain about what our presence has done to their infrastructure and caused needless death to innocent citizens. All in all, they have for so long just used us as a crutch, they can't walk without us.
..."
The first of those two paragraphs is true enough, but the second is full of BS, very moronic, etcetera.
Contrary to what pontificatinpapa believes, the Tail (Iraq) wags the Imperialist lackey Dog (USA)
It looks very much that the Iraq war will not end until American forces finally take matters into their own hands and mutiny. And when that happens, I really wonder if the much mouthed phrase "support our troops" will still be operative.
After seeing Kucinich fold yesterday, I would not count on it.
one minor thing which puzzles me about the Iraq war..is that initialy the war was against Saddam Hussien's regime and the Iraqi armed forces...the allied military fighting the Iraqi military...this was a winnable war and was won...
the Iraq war ended a long time ago
what is being fought now in Iraq is the "war on terror"
the US could at the very least claimed a victory in the war against Iraq
but it didn't....and it still insists on calling the "war on terror" in Iraq
the Iraq war.....the republican gaurd hasn't got a secret base in Iraq from which it is still launching counter attacks to protect the old regime...the Iraq war is over...well and truly
it may be something about nothing worrying about this detail but ...it seems a bit perculiar...am prepared to stand corrected if i am misinformed
are we to believe that Saddam Hussiens armed forces were not defeated?
that they are waging open warfare against the allies like invisible goblins appearing out of holes in the ground at this very moment...i mean to say if the Iraq war hasn't been won...then this means that Saddam Huseins regime hasn't been toppled...and his armed forces are still in control....plainly baffling for one and all...
so who are we fighting..? what war is being fought...i would have thought being able to figure out what war is being fought against which enemy ..might generaly be considered quite a good thing ..tho apparently not in this case..
what say you??
i have to say i'm pretty sure the allies won...or did they fake the footage on the telly..??
might it be slightly more difficult to justify the continued "war" in Iraq if folks noticed that they had allready won??
bit mad i know..what the hey
here's a bit of a silly thought...
perhaps it might be more interesting ..
instead of staging marches against the war in iraq...
if folks staged marches celebrating the victory in iraq..
not only would this confuse the shit out of everybody...it would garner media attention in a counter intuitive sort of way which could then be used to ask the question...."what are we doing in iraq...precisely.."
it would be freaky at first ..as you would get shouted at from all sides at once..no one would know wether you were for or against the war (as it were)
but it would allow the veterns some form of closure regarding the genuine war in iraq (which they undoubtedly WON...remember they did not make the decision to go to war..) whilst at the same time letting a lot of the air out the tyres of the government ...how would they dispute the validity of your celebratory march and the issues it raised..without making themselves look like the warmongering monsters they actualy are..it throws their own logic back in their faces..
thus far the government/s have had such an iron grip on the media and the logic bomb being used against the people..dictating every issue and when and how it is to be debated...perhaps it is neccesary to show them that logic is a two edged sword...and use that counter intuitive approach to draw a distinction between the "war in iraq" which was won..and the "war on terror" that cannot be won..
they are exploiting the patriotism and support for our troops from one war to further another purpose altogether ..this is an indecent abuse of the populaces love for their country ...they are asking that you salute the flag for the express reason that this will keep your hands busy whilst the steal your wallet..