U.S. Out of Iraq
Could happen sooner than even Obama wants if the Iraqis don’t make more political progress like the Dems always told them to. This time it’s intransigent Iraqi pols driving the bus, not just Democrats having a tantrum. Odierno warns Iraqis, no deal, no security. McClatchy:
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, informed Iraqi officials last week that if their country doesn’t agree to a new agreement governing American forces in Iraq, it would lose $6.3 billion in aid for construction, security forces and economic activity and another $10 billion a year in foreign military sales.
The warning was spelled out in a three-page list that was shown to McClatchy Newspapers on Monday. Iraqi officials consider the threat serious and worry that the impasse over the so-called status of forces agreement could lead to a crisis in Iraq. Without a new agreement or a renewed United Nations mandate, the U.S. military presence would become an illegal occupation under international law.
Odierno’s spokesman, Lt. Col. James Hutton, said that the list “provided information as a part of our normal engagements with many in the government of Iraq.”
If no new mandate or agreement is in place on Jan. 1, the U.S. would stop sharing intelligence with the Iraqi government and would cease to provide air traffic control, air defense, SWAT team training or advisers in government ministries, according to the document. The list also says that there would be no “disposition of U.S.-held Iraqi convicts” without a security agreement.
Odierno’s letter adds that American forces would stop training Iraq’s Security Forces and its barely functioning navy and air force, patrolling its borders and protecting its waterways. The U.S. military would stop employing some 200,000 Iraqis and wouldn’t refurbish 8,500 Humvees it’s given to the Security Forces. Nearly every Iraqi unit works in tandem with the roughly 151,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and American training teams are training Iraqi Security Forces nationwide.
With no agreement, U.S. troops would pull back to their bases and begin to withdraw from Iraq, American officials have said.
Without coalition forces, Iraq would virtually shut down.
Well, it’s their country. Always was, just held in receivership for a while, with an ongoing assist due to political, moral, security bankruptcy while we helped them get rid of a dictator, avoid genocide, get civilized. If they want us to abandon it, that’s their business. It’ll be a bummer about the massive Sunni-Shiite bloodletting, with Iranians, Syrians and al-Qaeda egging them on. Kurdistan will probably be fine and happy to be done with the Arabs, though it could get messy around the edges. Then, there’ll be the failed state(s), the humanitarian nightmare, staging areas for all kinds of terrorism around the region, wicked close to Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, other places we have a stake in. I hope for Iraq and the Iraqi people’s sake their pols figure it out.
The Iraqi government is examining contingency plans. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants an extension of the U.N. security mandate, but with changes that would allow Iraq to prosecute private contractors in Iraq. The U.S. would veto any changes to the mandate, however, which provides immunity from prosecution for American troops and contractors.
At a recent meeting of Iraq’s Political Council for National Security, the ministers of finance, planning, defense and interior argued that not signing the agreement would be a mistake. Despite their concerns, the country’s dominant Shiite Muslim alliance is demanding changes to the latest draft of the security agreement between the nations. Iran is pressuring Shiite Iraqi officials not to sign the agreement.
The amendments were supposed to be presented to Cabinet members Sunday, but on Monday the Shiite alliance still hadn’t finalized its changes. It’s been insisting that Iraq have the right to search American cargo, mail and military bases, which the U.S. would never accept. The alliance also wants to delete a provision that gives the Iraqi government the right to extend the security agreement beyond 2011.
Sounds kind of like they want U.S. security and cash, with the right to harass and shake down the United States at will. It’s a have your pita bread and eat it deal.
An agreement by Dec. 31 is virtually impossible at this point, Iraqi officials said in interviews, and a number of officials have told McClatchy that Maliki won’t sign the current draft of the agreement.
U.S. officials have hardened their public stance on the draft but have been unwilling to shut the door on negotiations. Last week Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process. I don’t think you slam the door shut, but I would say it’s pretty far closed.”
Iraqi pols are calling it “blackmail” for the U.S. to threaten withholding $$$ and security while pushing for such terms, though the United States seems to have a point. Conducting military operations, spending billions in cash could get messy quick if you have Iraqi security officers and pols showing up demanding this and that, with no clear guidelines on who’s entitled to what. But are the hated Crusaders being unreasonable? Times of London, meanwhile, has what the U.S. has been willing to concede:
The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.
The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.
They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.
Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.
Some Iraqi pols appear to feel like time is on their side.
“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.
That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.
What do they think, they’ll get a better deal from another president? What gave them that idea?
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:50 pm on Monday, October 27, 2008
One Response to “U.S. Out of Iraq”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Sounds like brinkmanship to me, but we’ll see. The Iraqis have shown quite a talent for political maneuvering before, and this may be more of the same.
My gut feeling is that some sort of agreement will be made before the deadline, even if it isn’t as far reaching as the Bush administration and the military would like. I’d be surprised if it happened before the election, though. If I was Maliki, for instance, I think I would want to know who the next US President was going to be before putting my poltical weight behind (or against) any final agreement.