U.S. comes to a weak agreement with Iraq regarding withdrawal
- Thread starter Dari
- Start date
Nice. First Bush vetoes an expenditure bill wrt the occupation that would have "tied his hands", but now he ties the hands of the future president by making an agreement with the Iraqi govt...
Lying, cheating, thieving charlatans to the very end...
Lying, cheating, thieving charlatans to the very end...
theflyingpig
Banned
- Mar 9, 2008
- 5,616
- 18
- 0
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
No, my guess is, not the final outcome. And certainly, IMHO, not the final path to something workable as a deadline of December 31 looms larger by the day.
In any intelligent analysis of the problem, only two facts are universally recognized by both the Iraqi and US side as items not in real dispute. (1) The UN mandate for the continuing US occupation ends on 12/31/2008. (2) That Iraqi is presently not quite ready to stand on its own yet. So hence the occupation should continue for some period beyond 12/31/2008 because there is no VIABLE other alternative.
If one accepts those two above premises, one should immediately see how dumb, GWB's the dumb approach has been. Especially as GWB is not only dumb, he is lame duck dumb, and everyone knows he will not be an active participant in implementing what he is trying to cram down everyone else mouth now.
And that there are two major flaws guaranteed to make the simple passage of any status of force agreement between Iraq and the USA into major debating and sticking points for both sides.
(a) As a non starter, we should lose this three year stuff, its far too long of a time frame, and way beyond what anyone's crystal ball can clearly see, especially when Iraq is subject to this much volatility, maybe at the verge of finally climbing to the top of a hill, but now is perhaps the steepest part of the climb, and a real danger always exists that Iraq might fall back into renewed violence. Three months might be too short, six months might be better, and anything longer than a year is too long. (b) The other bone of contention, especially from the perspective of the US Senate which also has a constitutional advice and consent role, will be an immediate night and day difference of transitioning all US forces into being immediately subject to Iraqi civilian law.
So it would seem wise to start that process, with both sides on probation, in any new and interim status of forces agreement. With the US agreeing to an interim period in which both Iraqi and US officials jointly handle the punishment of offenders. A compromise both sides may be able to commit to.
But as we all know, it now goes to the Iraqi parliament, a body historically unable to agree on anything controversial. But adding in provisions the provisions A+B outlined above, may defuse enough controversy, and the measure may squeak through. Bringing in an era and a metric where all sides can only advance their agenda by mutually coopering with other sides.
The kinds of common sense things all can agree on, only GWB&co are so dumb as not too see the obvious
In any intelligent analysis of the problem, only two facts are universally recognized by both the Iraqi and US side as items not in real dispute. (1) The UN mandate for the continuing US occupation ends on 12/31/2008. (2) That Iraqi is presently not quite ready to stand on its own yet. So hence the occupation should continue for some period beyond 12/31/2008 because there is no VIABLE other alternative.
If one accepts those two above premises, one should immediately see how dumb, GWB's the dumb approach has been. Especially as GWB is not only dumb, he is lame duck dumb, and everyone knows he will not be an active participant in implementing what he is trying to cram down everyone else mouth now.
And that there are two major flaws guaranteed to make the simple passage of any status of force agreement between Iraq and the USA into major debating and sticking points for both sides.
(a) As a non starter, we should lose this three year stuff, its far too long of a time frame, and way beyond what anyone's crystal ball can clearly see, especially when Iraq is subject to this much volatility, maybe at the verge of finally climbing to the top of a hill, but now is perhaps the steepest part of the climb, and a real danger always exists that Iraq might fall back into renewed violence. Three months might be too short, six months might be better, and anything longer than a year is too long. (b) The other bone of contention, especially from the perspective of the US Senate which also has a constitutional advice and consent role, will be an immediate night and day difference of transitioning all US forces into being immediately subject to Iraqi civilian law.
So it would seem wise to start that process, with both sides on probation, in any new and interim status of forces agreement. With the US agreeing to an interim period in which both Iraqi and US officials jointly handle the punishment of offenders. A compromise both sides may be able to commit to.
But as we all know, it now goes to the Iraqi parliament, a body historically unable to agree on anything controversial. But adding in provisions the provisions A+B outlined above, may defuse enough controversy, and the measure may squeak through. Bringing in an era and a metric where all sides can only advance their agenda by mutually coopering with other sides.
The kinds of common sense things all can agree on, only GWB&co are so dumb as not too see the obvious
This agreement is good. Weak how? Also, not sure what you are trying to say with your hand tying allegations. This agreement does nothing to "set up" Obama and ties no hands. First off, Obama wanted us out of there within 16 months, period, no mentions of conditions. This definitely works in his favor.
Second, the fact that it is "not based on conditions on the ground" only means we can't extend our stay in the cities or in the country. We have to be gone by that date, no exceptions. It does not mean we have to stay until that date. Sure, we wanted conditions initially, but that's too damn bad if the Iraqi government doesn't. If they feel they are ready to take full control, I say let them have it.
Most of our forces will be out of there when we are forced to leave the cities anyway. Balad can't handle them all, and there is simply not enough room or sustainment ability at most of the rural bases (most of which are already closed and gone anyway) for everyone we have in Baghdad and the other cities.
Second, the fact that it is "not based on conditions on the ground" only means we can't extend our stay in the cities or in the country. We have to be gone by that date, no exceptions. It does not mean we have to stay until that date. Sure, we wanted conditions initially, but that's too damn bad if the Iraqi government doesn't. If they feel they are ready to take full control, I say let them have it.
Most of our forces will be out of there when we are forced to leave the cities anyway. Balad can't handle them all, and there is simply not enough room or sustainment ability at most of the rural bases (most of which are already closed and gone anyway) for everyone we have in Baghdad and the other cities.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I don't think GWB had much choice here. As I've long said, the Iraqi's are in the driver's seat to a great extent.
IIRC, this agreement was scheduled to be completed by June '08, so it's way behind schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if this rigid timetable is a large part of the reason (along with juristictional issues over US troops etc).
Anyway, agrements can always be changed if the two parties agree to do so.
Fern
agreement seems ok to me...of course whether or not it actually plays out that way may change that
"The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said."
---good
"The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said."
---we all knew that we weren't going to remove everyone , and to be honest, i dont think anyone believes that we will remove all troops at this point, but hopefully most
"These dates are "set and fixed" and are "not subject to the circumstances on the ground," he said."
---GOOD
my only fear is that these poor guys over there will just be shipped off somewhere else ...
i can only hope that we can avoid a major military conflict with iran..
i think it would be an even worse mistake than attacking iraq..much worse..
"The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said."
---good
"The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said."
---we all knew that we weren't going to remove everyone , and to be honest, i dont think anyone believes that we will remove all troops at this point, but hopefully most
"These dates are "set and fixed" and are "not subject to the circumstances on the ground," he said."
---GOOD
my only fear is that these poor guys over there will just be shipped off somewhere else ...
i can only hope that we can avoid a major military conflict with iran..
i think it would be an even worse mistake than attacking iraq..much worse..
I love how everyone automatically blames Bush for a plan put into place by the Iraqis......
It's time for the Iraqi's to take control of their country; I don't know if a fixed date is the best way to accomplish this, but if that is what the Iraqis want then that is their decision.
It's time for the Iraqi's to take control of their country; I don't know if a fixed date is the best way to accomplish this, but if that is what the Iraqis want then that is their decision.
Tap your sarcasm meter- it was the same lame song and dance the bush fanbois put forward when the suggestion of a timetable was originally put forward- "tip our hand" blah, blah, blah...
Cha-ching.
Seriously. Let's get ask for some official request to leave by the Iraqi government and bolt.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the same that happened with the myth of WMD, all these were the false lies used to sell a war that never should have been fought and could not other wise be justified.
For all you who believed a word of what GWB, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfawitz,
and other were saying without some healthy skepticism and sales resistance, you are damn fools to come back now and ask what happened to the oil revenues we were supposed to get. You were not paying attention to what the straight man, GWB was telling the world, it was not about the oil remember. And the oil belonged to the Iraqi people, and the US would not loot a single drop.
Turns out that is one promise the world insists on the US keeping.
The government never said anything about oil profits in Iraq paying for the war before it started, nor was it on the resolution to invade, nor have they said anything about it after it started. The only people to ever bring up anything about oil profits are conspiracy theorist morons that believed we were only going there to get control of the oil.
There was no sarcasm in his post. Rest assured Jiggz, we "troops" don't think Bush hates us.
Jhhnn, you clearly are a moron. You don't need to be a military strategists to see that a timetable at that time would have been a huge mistake. Things aren't the same now as they were last summer.
mmmm .... nice revisionist history.
Bush got 'check-mated' and is eating crow. He has been forced to do a '180'. He flipped over the last three months starting with the 'time horizon' is not a timetable - LOL.
After consideration of 'no bid' Iraqi oil service contracts for Exxon, Shell & BP, they got cancelled. French, Russian and Chinese contracts are moving forward.
Another Fail for Commander Codpiece ....
Paul Wolfowitz told a Congressional panel that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction.
TallBill
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2001
- 46,017
- 62
- 91
Haha yeah, you'll still have people argue with you about that though.
Anyways, this was coming for a while. This is based off of a sharp decline of violence in Iraq in the last several months. I don't know why you'd even assume that it had anything to do with the election. I didn't hear anyone even mention Iraq in the last weeks of October.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
While we on this forum argue with ourselves, we must remember the next barrier any " security agreement " must clear is and remains the Iraqi Parliament. If it fails to pass, all arguments are moot.
And very little time exists to modify what we have to try again.
And very little time exists to modify what we have to try again.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Agreed. Iraq is under termendous pressure as well. They are trying to walk a fine line that appeases the "get out now" crowd like Sadr while others are pragmatic enough to understand that they arent ready to do it all themselves yet.
The security agreement is far more problematic for the Iraqis than it is for the US.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter