• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US plan for military future in Iraq leaked.

vhx

vhx

Golden Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa
A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorizes the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorization is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.
Click to expand...
Then again, I didn't think anyone seriously thought we would leave after spending so much time and money into it. I am not sure if we've 'temporarily' been in any country that we didn't have a big involvement in. 100 years of war in Iraq will probably happen, if this goes through, with or without McCain. I am just surprised this is a 'secret' plan, why wasn't this just publicized?
 
this sounds like the one point every single presidential candidate agrees on (the need to keep "some" troops in Iraq). regardless of what happens after the next commander in chief takes over, I think we'll see sustained US presence in the region to prevent Iraq from turning into another pre-invasion Afghanistan.
 
The super secret plan that is good as long as the grass is green, the sky is blue, until GWB leaves by 1/20/2009, or Maliki falls which may be in the next five minutes or he could outlast GWB.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
this sounds like the one point every single presidential candidate agrees on (the need to keep "some" troops in Iraq). regardless of what happens after the next commander in chief takes over, I think we'll see sustained US presence in the region to prevent Iraq from turning into another pre-invasion Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

We will maintain a presence there and we will decrease our numbers soon. Both are a logistical necessity.
 
We will have a token troop withdrawal before the Presidential election in an effort to keep a Republican in the White House. After that move it will be back to more of the same. If McCain wins we will have a large presence in Iraq for at least 4 more years.
 
Old news and not exactly super-secret, as the Guardian tries to make it out to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...leeast/25military.html

Published: January 25, 2008

WASHINGTON ? With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.

This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.

At the same time, the administration faces opposition from Democrats at home, who warn that the agreements that the White House seeks would bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush?s policies and a long-term military presence.

The American negotiating position for a formal military-to-military relationship, one that would replace the current United Nations mandate, is laid out in a draft proposal that was described by White House, Pentagon, State Department and military officials on ground rules of anonymity. It also includes less controversial demands that American troops be immune from Iraqi prosecution, and that they maintain the power to detain Iraqi prisoners.

However, the American quest for protections for civilian contractors is expected to be particularly vexing, because in no other country are contractors working with the American military granted protection from local laws. Some American officials want contractors to have full immunity from Iraqi law, while others envision less sweeping protections. These officials said the negotiations with the Iraqis, expected to begin next month, would also determine whether the American authority to conduct combat operations in the future would be unilateral, as it is now, or whether it would require consultation with the Iraqis or even Iraqi approval.

?These are going to be tough negotiations,? said one senior Bush administration official preparing for negotiations with the Iraqis. ?They?re not supplicants.?

...
Click to expand...
 
That is not US plan, that is Bush administration's plan. Bush is a lame duck, and his plans have an intrinsic 8 month shelf life, so the no time limit pipe dream is just that.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
That is not US plan, that is Bush administration's plan. Bush is a lame duck, and his plans have an intrinsic 8 month shelf life, so the no time limit pipe dream is just that.
Click to expand...

Nah, the US won't give up the annexation of Iraq. Too much invested there and the alternative is to get real and face the problems with the US economy etc. That will never happen.
 
The other joker in the deck is Iraq. They may well soon* tell us Yankee go home and not even a token force will be allowed to remain. As the Iraqi people decide they are sick of us deciding to be the decider. And it need not be a necessarily angry divorce. Our revolution went through something similar, English Presence trade was still welcome, but troops were a no.

*But soon might have a less than a decade or a 2-5 year definition.
 
I'm not seeing the newsworthiness of this article really...

It's clear the Iraqi's aren't ready to control their own country in totality, and definitely have a ways to go on their security forces (see the recent thread on 1k of them not reporting for duty in the recent actions). Do any of you really expect the US, after all that's been accomplished at this point, to walk away from them when they're finally making progress?

What's the point of a timetable when the timetable is 'We'll leave when either you formally ask us to, or, when the job is done....whichever occurs first'?

Chuck
 
Do any of you think if when the US forces went into Iraq they had secured the border, kept the military intact, hired Iraq contractors, there would have been no terrorists recruiting followers and we could have pulled out three years ago?
 
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Do any of you think if when the US forces went into Iraq they had secured the border, kept the military intact, hired Iraq contractors, there would have been no terrorists recruiting followers and we could have pulled out three years ago?
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but, No.

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Do any of you think if when the US forces went into Iraq they had secured the border, kept the military intact, hired Iraq contractors, there would have been no terrorists recruiting followers and we could have pulled out three years ago?
Click to expand...
Some may. I don't. We'd have faced different problems instead.

Pointing out the flaws of the plan implemented vs. the one never implemented can only be done via 20/20 hindsight anyway.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Do any of you think if when the US forces went into Iraq they had secured the border, kept the military intact, hired Iraq contractors, there would have been no terrorists recruiting followers and we could have pulled out three years ago?
Click to expand...
Some may. I don't. We'd have faced different problems instead.

Pointing out the flaws of the plan implemented vs. the one never implemented can only be done via 20/20 hindsight anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The invasion itself was stupid, the execution was irrelevant 🙂
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
We will have a token troop withdrawal before the Presidential election in an effort to keep a Republican in the White House. After that move it will be back to more of the same. If McCain wins we will have a large presence in Iraq for at least 4 more years.
Click to expand...

Before we invaded Iraq, any neutral student of political science could have predicted that it was not a country ripe for democracy. An analysis of the demographics of the population, the employment statistics, the level of corruption under a long-term dictatorship, the lack of education about or understanding of political institutions among the people. Even the Bush administration seemed to realize that, replacing Saddam with "Viceroy" Paul Bremer, who moved into Saddam's palace and began issuing edicts and throwing money around just as Saddam did, a far cry from the slow and deliberate process of educating the populace about the rights and responsibilities of living in a democratic society.

Didn't anyone in this administration even consider the irony, not to mention the idiocy, of moving our whole "new" democracy team for Iraq into the hated dictator's Palace?

No "leaders" have emerged because there is no passion for leadership or a new direction and we have put no effort into the hard diplomatic work required to support the emergence of a new nation.

In this Adminsitration's world view, perception is reality and reality-based thinking is for losers. If this surge has resulted in a temporary relative lull - that is as close to victory as these guys will get, and it's plenty good enough. This was Bush's trademark Hail mary pass - not to save iraq, but to save himself. It will give the Administration pretext to head enough troops for the exits in sufficient numbers to provide some political cover, at least for Republicans in 2008 and some pretext to claim "victory".

Every setback from this point out will be the fault, first, of the Democrats & the American people for getting in the way, and then of the Iraqis for bungling their "opportunity". Naturally, the Administration will be scot-free of blame. That's the frame we are seeing, and that's in keeping with what we have seen. No mistakes have ever been made, and all failure is someone else's fault.

Neither the Democrats nor the Iraqis will ever be able to fight this grade-school logic, becase it isn't logical or reasonable and you can't defeat perceptual emotions with argument. The Bushies will depart, secure they succeeded. If historians and the public condemn them, well, in a longer timeframe historians will have sufficient perspective so that they will change their minds. But, really, do you think they care what historians say about them?






 
people at that level certainl care what history thinks about them... it's an artifact of the power thing...

i think it's so swell that we do everything on cspan so all of our enemies see the way our plans are formulated... gotta love how freedom is a double edged sword...
 
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: conehead433
We will have a token troop withdrawal before the Presidential election in an effort to keep a Republican in the White House. After that move it will be back to more of the same. If McCain wins we will have a large presence in Iraq for at least 4 more years.
Click to expand...

Before we invaded Iraq, any neutral student of political science could have predicted that it was not a country ripe for democracy. An analysis of the demographics of the population, the employment statistics, the level of corruption under a long-term dictatorship, the lack of education about or understanding of political institutions among the people. Even the Bush administration seemed to realize that, replacing Saddam with "Viceroy" Paul Bremer, who moved into Saddam's palace and began issuing edicts and throwing money around just as Saddam did, a far cry from the slow and deliberate process of educating the populace about the rights and responsibilities of living in a democratic society.

Didn't anyone in this administration even consider the irony, not to mention the idiocy, of moving our whole "new" democracy team for Iraq into the hated dictator's Palace?

No "leaders" have emerged because there is no passion for leadership or a new direction and we have put no effort into the hard diplomatic work required to support the emergence of a new nation.

In this Adminsitration's world view, perception is reality and reality-based thinking is for losers. If this surge has resulted in a temporary relative lull - that is as close to victory as these guys will get, and it's plenty good enough. This was Bush's trademark Hail mary pass - not to save iraq, but to save himself. It will give the Administration pretext to head enough troops for the exits in sufficient numbers to provide some political cover, at least for Republicans in 2008 and some pretext to claim "victory".

Every setback from this point out will be the fault, first, of the Democrats & the American people for getting in the way, and then of the Iraqis for bungling their "opportunity". Naturally, the Administration will be scot-free of blame. That's the frame we are seeing, and that's in keeping with what we have seen. No mistakes have ever been made, and all failure is someone else's fault.

Neither the Democrats nor the Iraqis will ever be able to fight this grade-school logic, becase it isn't logical or reasonable and you can't defeat perceptual emotions with argument. The Bushies will depart, secure they succeeded. If historians and the public condemn them, well, in a longer timeframe historians will have sufficient perspective so that they will change their minds. But, really, do you think they care what historians say about them?
Click to expand...

So are you saying it's all "Bush&Co"'s fault for things have gone over there, or, a mix of all 3?

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
......
We will maintain a presence there and we will decrease our numbers soon. Both are a logistical necessity.
Click to expand...

Logistical necessity for what? As a forward operating base against Iran? As another base in America's ever expanding empire of bases? Just before 9/11 the US had about 250k military personel (+250k dependents) all spread out in overseas bases. Truly a model for expanding for the sake of expansion.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Do any of you think if when the US forces went into Iraq they had secured the border, kept the military intact, hired Iraq contractors, there would have been no terrorists recruiting followers and we could have pulled out three years ago?
Click to expand...
Some may. I don't. We'd have faced different problems instead.

Pointing out the flaws of the plan implemented vs. the one never implemented can only be done via 20/20 hindsight anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The invasion itself was stupid, the execution was irrelevant 🙂
Click to expand...

To echo what I have said in another thread, even if the US did not disband the Iraqi army, prevented blatant war profiteering by KBR, Bechtel etc, quickly and efficiently rebuilt infrastructure, big MNCs (incl the mil-industrial complex) would still have gained a huge windfall from the Iraqi incursion.

As it stands now, Iraq has signed unfair exploitative Production Sharing Agreements which will reap huge profits for big oil at the expense of the ordinary Iraqi's. All without proper debate and negotiation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
Bremer also put Iraq on an IMF on steroids economic policy which is a proven failure in another example of the long litany of IMF failures by forcing Iraq to adopt neoliberal doctrines prematurely.

 
Originally posted by: orangat
-snip-
As it stands now, Iraq has signed unfair exploitative Production Sharing Agreements which will reap huge profits for big oil at the expense of the ordinary Iraqi's. All without proper debate and negotiation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
-snip-
Click to expand...

That is not true. The Iraqi oil legislation was expected to pass, but still has not.

Nor are PSA agreements necessarily the fraud many of these type authors claim. However, it's mostly moot as the Iraqi oil ministry is now attempting to negotiate fixed return type agreements with foreign investers.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: orangat
-snip-
As it stands now, Iraq has signed unfair exploitative Production Sharing Agreements which will reap huge profits for big oil at the expense of the ordinary Iraqi's. All without proper debate and negotiation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
-snip-
Click to expand...

That is not true. The Iraqi oil legislation was expected to pass, but still has not.

Nor are PSA agreements necessarily the fraud many of these type authors claim. However, it's mostly moot as the Iraqi oil ministry is now attempting to negotiate fixed return type agreements with foreign investers.

Fern
Click to expand...

You're right, it was only a draft. But it cannot be denied that US/European oil companies were meddling around and have fixed laws at the expense of the Iraqi's. While PSA's may not be legalized robbery depending upon the language used in the contract, PSA's are not common and especially not ones like Iraq with huge proven reserves.

Even discounting any oil scandals, the Iraqi reconstruction was managed and structured to follow neocon neoliberal economic policies which have already proven disastrous.
 
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
and staying in Iraq will protect us against terrorist how exactly? Can someone please point out how being in Iraq is protecting us against the same folks who planned 9/11 and attacked us during 9/11? The 9/11 attacks were a plan that were not hatched out, molded or executed in Iraq or by Iraqis Yet somehow having our troops deployed there is going to protect us from terrorist attack in the future.
Click to expand...

How did the 19 men who attacked us get to that point over their lifetimes?

Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top