« She Had A Bad DayChurch of Hank’s Convenience »

Here’s The Deal

Rice and Gates, Washington Post, on the U.S.-Iraq strategic deal.  They note that the UN authorization will run out at the end of the year, and its time for normalized relations between two sovereign nations with closely tied interests. Here’s what it will be and what it won’t be:   

In these negotiations, we seek to set the basic parameters for the U.S. presence in Iraq, including the appropriate authorities and jurisdiction necessary to operate effectively and to carry out essential missions, such as helping the Iraqi government fight al-Qaeda, develop its security forces, and stem the flow of lethal weapons and training from Iran. In addition, we seek to establish a basic framework for a strong relationship with Iraq, reflecting our shared political, economic, cultural and security interests.

Nothing to be negotiated will mandate that we continue combat missions. Nothing will set troop levels. Nothing will commit the United States to join Iraq in a war against another country or provide other such security commitments. And nothing will authorize permanent bases in Iraq (something neither we nor Iraqis want). And consistent with well-established practice regarding such agreements, nothing will involve the U.S. Senate’s treaty-ratification authority — although we will work closely with the appropriate committees of Congress to keep lawmakers informed and to provide complete transparency. Classified briefings have already begun, and we look forward to congressional input.

In short, nothing to be negotiated in the coming months will tie the hands of the next commander in chief, whomever he or she may be. Quite the contrary, it will give the president the legal authority to protect our national interest — and the latitude to chart the next administration’s course.

All sounds good. It’s all reasonable, there’s some reachout. Sounds like a considerable drawdown from what was floated earlier, that envisioned an ongoing US-South Korea style security deal, though. Which is too bad, because Iraq could use that and so could the United States. Bad neighborhood. But the handover to the next administration, whatever that might be, has begun. Rather than set up a deal the Democrats can campaign against, that Congress can fume against, that an incoming Democratic administration might feel compelled to dismantle, there appears to be a decision to set conditions and terms whereby an incoming administration of any stripe might be positioned to do the right thing. 

There’s a fair amount of irony in what is left unsaid in the kicker, though:

There is little doubt that 2008 will be a year of critical transition in Iraq as our force levels continue to come down, as our mission changes and as Iraqis continue to assert their sovereignty. But to continue the success we have seen in recent months, the Iraqi people and government will continue to need our help. Iraqis have requested a normalized relationship with us, and such a relationship will be part of a foundation of success in Iraq — a foundation upon which future U.S. administrations can build.

Or destroy. Because the most critical transition for Iraq in 2008 will be revealed on the first Tuesday in November.

Previously,

Iraq = Korea = Kosovo = Bosnia = Germany = Japan = Australia = Brtiain = Iceland = ETC

Iraq = Korea

A First

Topics: Bush, Iraq, military, pols

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 6:56 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2008

6 Responses to “Here’s The Deal”

1. Don Surber » Blog Archive » Iraq = Korea? Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 8:45 am

   [...] Jules Crittenden says maybe not. [...]

2. blogagog Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am

   I’m still furious over our Iraq policy. The hippies assured me that we would be trading blood for oil. Well, we spent a good deal of blood from some of our greatest Americans, and I still didn’t get any oil!

   Hippies are liars.

3. jay k. Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am

   this is the same gang that said we don’t torture, that we don’t wiretap us citizens without warrants, that iraq had wmd, that iraq had close ties to al queda, that no one could imagine anyone flying planes into our buildings, etc. etc. etc. so you will have to forgive me if, when they say this won’t tie the hands of future administrations, i don’t believe a word of it. they may be lying, they may just be stupid. either way, it doesn’t matter.

4. Fatty Bolger Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

   This is good, though I was hoping for something much more substantial. Reachout is a waste of time, IMO. The Dems will campaign against whatever is done anyway, so the administration might as well try to accomplish something significant and dare the Dems to remove it later (assuming they end up with the power to do so).

   I don’t know if jay k. is a Democrat or not, but he certainly represents the prevailing view among them. They’re not likely to be swayed by any move made on securing Iraq for the future, no matter how modest, so we might as well push for the best deal possible and leave the next administration with the responsibility of maintaining it, changing it, or undoing it as they see fit.

5. jay k. Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

   the democrats helped bush gut the bill of rights yesterday…how much more cooperation do you want?

6. RebeccaH Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

   Yep, the Bill of Rights has been gutted and we’re living in a police state now. Better run and hide, Jay K. They’ll be knocking on your door any minute now.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.