According to reuters the government spokesman has also said the following:Iraq cabinet backs US troops deal
The Iraqi cabinet has approved a security pact with the US governing the future presence of 150,000 US troops in the country, officials have said.
Under the deal, US troops will withdraw from the streets of Iraqi towns next year, leaving Iraq by the end of 2011.
The decision will need to go before Iraq's parliament for a final vote.
America's National Security Council welcomed the cabinet's vote, saying it was "an important and positive step" towards stability and security.
The pact is necessary to determine the role of US military forces in Iraq after their UN mandate expires on 31 December 2008.
In October, Iraq sent a new round of suggested changes to the draft Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), to which the US responded.
Washington had previously said the pact was "final" and could not be amended.
The UK government, which has 4,100 troops in Iraq, is waiting for the US-Iraqi pact to be approved so they can use it as a template for their own bi-lateral deal.
Deal struck
As the Iraqi cabinet met on Sunday, two bomb attacks - in Baghdad and Diyala province - killed at least 18 people and wounded many more.
The cabinet approved the pact after a two-and-a-half hour meeting, government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said.
All but one of the 28 ministers present had voted in favour of the pact, he added, according to the Associated Press news agency.
In a statement, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the US hoped for a successful vote in the Iraqi parliament:According to Mr Dabbagh, the agreement's terms include:
* placing US forces in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government
* US forces to leave the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of 2009
* US forces to hand over their bases to Iraq during the course of 2009
* US forces to lose the authority to raid Iraqi homes without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government.
"We remain hopeful and confident we'll soon have an agreement that serves both the people of Iraq and the United States well and sends a signal to the region and the world that both our governments are committed to a stable, secure and democratic Iraq."
The BBC's Andrew North, in Baghdad, says that a compromise was reached on the key issue of Iraqi jurisdiction over US troops and contractors in the country.
In it, a joint committee will decide if Americans who commit crimes outside US bases should face Iraqi justice.
While many Iraqi politicians publicly oppose the deal, our correspondent says, in private they support it.
They believe it will give the government more power over US troops and will allow the Iraqi military more time to develop into an effective security force.
The agreement is set to be submitted to Iraq's parliament later on Sunday, but it is not clear when the body will vote on it.
It then needs to be ratified by Iraq's presidential council before Prime Minister Nouri Maliki can sign the deal with US President George W Bush.
The BBC's Bob Trevelyan says that Mr Maliki has been trying to build support for the amended pact and the main Shia and Kurdish alliances in parliament have recently agreed to back it.
He also appears to have persuaded the country's most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, not to oppose it publicly.
The cleric is highly influential in Iraq's Shia community. Any public criticism of the pact by him would probably have stopped it winning parliamentary approval, our correspondent says.
Iraqi officials say failure to pass the agreement would be highly damaging for Iraqi security.
US officials have said it would mean suspending their operations in Iraq.
Speaking before Sunday's meeting, Iraq's lead negotiator, Muwafaq al-Rubaie, said he believed the draft agreement was a "very good text" and he expected it to be approved by parliament as well.
Protest call
But the pact has drawn fire from hardline nationalists, especially Iraq's influential Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr, whose supporters have called for mass demonstrations to oppose any agreement with the US "occupier".
On the streets of Baghdad there was a mixed reaction to the pact.
''We don't want an agreement with America," said Rasheed al-Jumali.
"We don't want an agreement with Israel. We don't want an agreement with Iran. They (the government) should work towards reinforcing the gallant Iraqi army. We fully and totally reject this security pact.''
But Mun'am al-Abadi backed the government, adding: "The Iraqi government knows its people well. We are oppressed people. If the security agreement benefits us, we accept it completely.''
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...th/7731971.stm
Published: 2008/11/16 21:30:26 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Obviously the Iraqi government is getting more eager to get rid of the Americans now that security is improving."The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground. This date is specific and final," cabinet spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
Well, I'm sure that would depend upon the nature of the circumstance on the ground. That being said though, the U.S. is in as much of a hurry to get out as the Iraqi government is to see them gone. Of course we will see how well things turn out after the U.S. leaves, which is the point of all of this.format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
I seriously doubt the US is in any hurry to get out. Despite the casualties they're sustaining. Bush is a lameduck president on his way out with ratings that have plummetted so low that they're pretty much irretrievable. Having been politically cornered, they wanted to ratify this and bequeath it to Obama. Thats what has happened.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Wouldn't Obama be happy with this agreement, since it sets a timetable, exactly what he campaigned for and what Bush has always resisted?format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Besides, the timing has everything to do with the UN mandate expiring on the 31st December.
Obama campaigned to withdraw the troops and outlined a timetable not exceeding 16 months. He's been undercut by Bush and it looks now that he'll be forced to hold them there till 2011. Unless he can invoke his presidential veto to somehow override this agreement and render it nullified.format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
The level of violence has dropped off dramatically in the past year. One can only hope that this drop in violence is due to increased legitimacy with the Iraqi government and the isolation of insurgent elements. If not, they are simply waiting until the U.S. leaves before renewing their insurgency.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Obama's pledge to "end the war immediately" was never reality to begin with. That was to get the liberal vote, but what happens when you're president is a different matter altogether.
How will "he be forced to hold them (US troops) there till 2011"? Does this agreement say that US forces can't leave any earlier than that?format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
It may well do, im working on that assumption. And that assumption is based on the past record of the Bush administration. Think about it, Bush always wanted to remain there, 3 years was probably the minimum the Iraqis were willing to go, and that also probably because they wanted to avert a defeat at the next election.format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
You're making it sound as if it has dropped to acceptable levels. What happened is that from the astonishing figures of previous years, it has dropped to some what less astonishing figures but still enormously high nonetheless. This fact is what the Bush administration is peddling as it's indicator of "success" in Iraq.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Besides, once they're withdrawn, what insurance policy will the Al Sahwa bloc have against the Shia dominated government? they're certainly not going to listen to lackeys like Talabani, Zebari etc. It will again degenerate into chaos.
In the context of American troop losses the number has dramatically decreased. Yes, there are still suicide bombings in market places targeting women and children, and the occasional Iraqi police station. There is very little a military force can do in terms of stopping a suicide bomber targeting civilians.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
That is the risk. Either the new Iraqi government will prove its legitimacy and be accepted by the majority of the Iraqi people or it won't. That is the test for any new representative government.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
From the "international community's" point of view, US troop casualties are not the issue. It is the Iraqi civilians who are being killed as a direct result of the occupation and consequent insurgency.
Any new Iraqi government installed by an American administration will always be bereft of legitimacy, this is doubtless. The question is, what kind of administration will supplant it? will it be led by a new dictator? will there be a majority Shia Sadrist type movement posturing to take over? Who stands to gain from an American withdrawal? The Iraqi army cannot stand up to militias like the Mahdi Army. I think the one possibility that the Americans just might countenance would be a power sharing coalition, a bit like we have now, but with much expanded prerogatives for the partners in the alliance, based on demographics and popular appeal. If that were to happen, the likes of Sistani and Al Sadr would be poised to have a majority and in effect, dominate the government and it's policy making functions.
I can't look into Bush's head, but I don't believe he wants to remain there, he just doesn't want a timetable. And that is what he got nevertheless. From all what I read this timetable sets deadlines for US withdrawals, not requirements on how long they must stay.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Besides, if Obama is really that eager to leave a year earlier, he could of course renegotiate this agreement with the Iraqis, if indeed that is a requirement. I don't think he'll want to do that though, since his 16 month pull-out plan called for the withdrawal of most US troops in that period. Since he says on his campaign website that "a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel". We don't know the details of the agreement at this point, but it sure seems it doesn't contradict Obama's plan.
Last edited by KAding; 11-18-2008 at 10:19 AM.
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
It is in Bush's interest to remain there, primarily for strategic reasons concerning the likes of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc. I too don't know the exact stipulations of this agreement or whether or not it is in any way legally binding on the incoming Obama administration.
It does certainly contradict Obama's plan in the sense that this plan bears no parallels with the residual presence notion that Obama had been propagating. He insisted on beginning a withdrawal of all troops immedieately after taking office, and concluding the process within a time-frame of 16 months. This agreement on the other hand, consolidates the 150,000 troops inside Iraq for another 2 years without the imposition of mandatory troop cuts. There's a clear contradiction.
That being the case it becomes both politically and morally incumbent on Obama to repeal this agreement and commence the withdrawal as a matter of exigency.
I disagree.H ow does the US having 150000 troops in Iraq help the US vis a vis Iran or Syria, let alone Hizbullah? Take Iran, at this moment the US presence in Iraq makes the US vulnerable to Iranian attack in case of a military strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities. The presence of US troops in Iraq is a liability which inhibits the American freedom to act.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Again, you are assuming that the agreement stipulates that the US must keep 150,000 troops in Iraq. What is this assumption based on? Next year already, US troops will have to withdraw from the cities and lose the right to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval. Isn't it more logical that such a change would be accompanied with a US troop reductions?I too don't know the exact stipulations of this agreement or whether or not it is in any way legally binding on the incoming Obama administration.
It does certainly contradict Obama's plan in the sense that this plan bears no parallels with the residual presence notion that Obama had been propagating. He insisted on beginning a withdrawal of all troops immedieately after taking office, and concluding the process within a time-frame of 16 months. This agreement on the other hand, consolidates the 150,000 troops inside Iraq for another 2 years without the imposition of mandatory troop cuts. There's a clear contradiction.
The Iraqi government spokesman has supposedly said that they have received assurances from the US government that the new administration would honor the agreement.That being the case it becomes both politically and morally incumbent on Obama to repeal this agreement and commence the withdrawal as a matter of exigency.
From AP:
I disagree that it is morally incumbent on Obama to withdraw ASAP btw. What is morally incumbent is that does Iraq not slide into massive civil conflict again, with multiple times the casualties we see now. This does not mean that he should keep US forces there, but it does mean he has to be prudent on this matter. Withdrawing before the Iraqi government is ready to take over responsibility would be a major disaster.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...CiqGwD94G86LG0
Al-Dabbagh said Iraq's government has received U.S. assurances that the President-elect Barack Obama would honor the agreement, and pointed out that each side has the right to repeal it after giving one year's notice.
Having a military presence in the region does act as a deterrent because it conveys the message that the Americans are not keen to allow a growing Shia federation to emerge in the region, one that will invariably draw in the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. The Iranians themselves would not contemplate attacking the US in Iraq, especially given the possible involvement of israel if any such confrontation does erupt.
It is not necessarily the case that withdrawing from the cities would be conducted in tandem with troop reductions, they could just as likely be garrisoned on the outskirts of the cities just like the British had to withdraw from Basra city to the airport. This agreement, like you're implying, is not cast in stone. It is subject to change, and with the vagaries of the insurrection, it likely will change. Even the fact that they will have to conduct operations with Iraqi military approval, does not in any way mitigate the fact that this is a heavily skewed agreement in favour of the Americans. The senior Iraqi military officials are all loyalists, and will issue approval to any raids the americans deem necessary.
It is indeed incumbent upon Obama to withdraw immedieately. One of the key planks of his election was his assertion that the very premise of this war was wrong, and continued American presence must be brought to an end. Whether this means procrastinating for a year more is inconsequential. Also, adamantly reject this widely peddled notion that American withdrawal will result in instantaneous sectarian strife. Yes the Sunni bloc backed by America will resort to militancy, but the Iraqis will be able to sort out their problems. This is the overwhelming belief among the people, the intellectuals, specialists etc.
Disaster in the American sense would be to have a progressive, independent, Iraqi government ruling the country which doesn't strive to implement an american agenda. That is what it all comes down to.
The Iraqi Army is much improved, and the Al-Sadr militia is hardly an effective fighting force. If you recall, the one time the Sadr militia attempted to oppose the U.S. military it was a bloodbath, and not American blood either. The Iraqi Army has the capability to put down Al-Sadr and he knows it, which is why he seems more interested in forming a political bloc these days and only rarely makes threats of violence. That threat of violence is probably what led to the new agreement.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Just as an aside, another aspect of the agreement was that the Iraqi state now has the ability to charge and prosecute foreign contractors, meaning Blackwater primarily, for any unlawful acts they commit. That is another big exercise of sovereignty, and bodes well for their eventual legitimacy.
Not entirely true. The last time the Iraqi army directly engaged the Mahdi Army, they were routed, and it was Muqtada himself that decreed his troops withdraw. I think you're underestimating the amout of support the Mahdi Army has. The Iraqi army by no means has the capability to put down the Mahdi Army. The primary reason that Al Sadr is involved in a political grouping is because of the assurances that have been made to his bloc of American withdrawal, and an the overwhelming need for peace among his own constituents. Everytime he threatens to pull his ministers out of the cabinet, the government stares down the prospect of total collapse. That is the level of support the Mahdi Army has, and it is them who are underpinning the unity and equilibrium of the Iraqi government.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
How many times have we seen Sunni's abandon the government only to reopen negotiations without too significantly affecting the position of the government and it's legitimacy?. Al Sadr is a crucial component of the Iraqi body politic. His movement's absence will lead invariably to a mass popular uprising, which even the American's themselves recognize.
As for the question of Blackwater, this was a resolution that was bound to be implemented even before their atrocities against Iraqi civilians. It was that incident that elevated the issue of lifting immunity from the Iraqi judicial process for American military personnel and mercenaries operating in the country to the top of the agenda.
I disagree. I believe that if Bush thought that he could have safely pulled out US troops before the end of 2008, rather than letting someone else get the credit for it, he would have done so. Whether I agree with his conclusion or not, I do believe he just didn't consider it to be possible yet. I don't think there is an American, on either side of the aisle (with the possible exception of Haliburton executives), that want to see the US in Iraq one day longer than necessary, and the number who think that day has already come and gone has been steadily growing for the last 3 years. But it is fears that what is left behind once the US troops are gone might not be able to sustain the peace in Iraq that keeps the US there longer than anyone, including the US, wants. It's a Catch-22 situation I am of the opinion we never should have gotten into, but once in, at least getting out must be done in the right way.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
We need to set the record straight here. The fear of what would happen in Iraq if the US pulls out is not what is prolonging an american military presence there. That factors into it, but there is a much broader picture to be painted here. American military withdrawal would mean a vacum for regional powers to step in and fill. Now by that i don't mean a military one, i mean a vacum of influence, which is critical. 4000 dead american soldiers is not enough of a price to pay yet to abnegate what's at stake geo-politically in the region. That point must be understood.format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I assume you are referring to Iran? It doesn't take 100,000 U.S. troops to serve as a buffer against Iran. One aircraft carrier is enough to give Iran pause. The battle of ideals will be decided by the success or failure of Iraqi democracy.format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks