Washington warns Iraq to accept security deal

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

Washington warns Iraq to accept security deal

WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

The White House said Iraqi security forces are incapable of keeping the peace without U.S. troops, raising the specter of reversals in recent security and political gains if the proposed security deal is not approved by the time the current legal basis for U.S. military operations expires Dec. 31.

"There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "And the Iraqis know that. And so, we're confident that they'll be able to recognize this. And if they don't, there will be real consequences, if Americans aren't able to operate there."

At the Pentagon, press secretary Geoff Morrell said the U.S. fallback position is to extend the U.N. Security Council mandate authorizing U.S.-led coalition operations in Iraq, but he emphasized that the Bush administration's preference is to complete a bilateral U.S.-Iraqi agreement.




I am wondering how much pressure is being put on the Iraqis to do a deal BEFORE the U.S. election?
Seems to me the statement There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said is just a made up threat. After all, the US has had troops in many countries, merely at the request of that country.

 

[StageLeft]

There is I believe a lot of pressure. Bush has been pushing hard for this for months and it would make nice talking points for some 11th hour McCain ads.

 

[Robor]

I hope Iraq calls their bluff or at least pushes any deal back after the election.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
-snip-
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

Seems to me the statement There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said is just a made up threat. After all, the US has had troops in many countries, merely at the request of that country.

Are you crazy? (No, don't bother to answer that.)

It's not a warning, it's reality.

The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq ends on Dec. 31. We have no legal basis for our presence after that. The UN has warned us that they will not grant an extension without an official request from Iraq.

Maliki himself does NOT have the authority to request an extension. The Iraqi parliment has passed a law forbidding him from doing so without their permission.

If no agreement is reached we MUST leave or we'll be there *illegally*.

This is fact, not something "made up".

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

And other items on the news, Iraq has warned that the non negotiable security pact will not pass the Iraqi Parliament without changes. As for the UN extension, Maliki does not need a signed and sealed security agreement to go to the UN and request an extension. Which he will probably happily do, secure in the knowledge that GWB will be gone, and with an Iraqi Parliament blessing in his pocket. And once GWB&co is removed from the equation, a hopefully more rational US President will have that four year permanence to deal, and GWB, as a lame duck, lost that permanence a long time ago, while acquiring a reverse Midas touch; As everything GWB did in Iraq basically turned to shit.

It would be almost irrational for Iraq to ratify any deal until after the election, and then,
for a period of up to 77 days, the President elect will become the new defacto State department. And a future President Obama would be more likely to get the USA off of probation in Iraq than McCain.

It may gall the hell out of GWB&co, but the world has been ignoring GWB for years as it is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
-snip-
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

Seems to me the statement There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said is just a made up threat. After all, the US has had troops in many countries, merely at the request of that country.

Are you crazy? (No, don't bother to answer that.)

It's not a warning, it's reality.

The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq ends on Dec. 31. We have no legal basis for our presence after that. The UN has warned us that they will not grant an extension without an official request from Iraq.

Maliki himself does NOT have the authority to request an extension. The Iraqi parliment has passed a law forbidding him from doing so without their permission.

If no agreement is reached we MUST leave or we'll be there *illegally*.

This is fact, not something "made up".

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

Fern

It would not be surprising in the least if Bush uses this justification "The people of Iraq wish safety in their nation. That the government does not yet meet the expectations of the people means that we are justified in staying, and have a legal basis to do so because the Iraqi people wish it."

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with the Hayabusa Rider logic, GWB is certain to try to use that logic, but without something signed and sealed in his pocket, there are still 57 days left for the Iraqi parliament and Maliki to hammer out a temporary agreement that will win an extension from the UN. The little boy who cried wolf lost all credibility years ago and everyone knows it.

We had a similar thread in which I stated GWB would be a damn fool to make the agreement non negotiable. And now when told its GWB"s way or the highway, the consensus choice is the high road.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
-snip-
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

Seems to me the statement There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said is just a made up threat. After all, the US has had troops in many countries, merely at the request of that country.

Are you crazy? (No, don't bother to answer that.)

It's not a warning, it's reality.

The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq ends on Dec. 31. We have no legal basis for our presence after that. The UN has warned us that they will not grant an extension without an official request from Iraq.

Maliki himself does NOT have the authority to request an extension. The Iraqi parliment has passed a law forbidding him from doing so without their permission.

If no agreement is reached we MUST leave or we'll be there *illegally*.

This is fact, not something "made up".

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

Fern

Fern who gives a shit what the UN says.......

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Robor
I hope Iraq calls their bluff or at least pushes any deal back after the election.

You mean kind of like the actual investigation review of the Acorn actions?

 

[SP33Demon]

Bwahahaha now they (Bush admin) want to go to the UN for an extension? That's rich.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I-snip-
And now when told its GWB"s way or the highway, the consensus choice is the high road.

I'm not sure what that ^ means.

But surely you have read info about the situation. The problem is not necessarily "GWB's way or the highway", the Iraqi parliment is fractured and they cannot agree among themselves what they want.

What one demands in an agreement, another opposes.

Under such circumstances it will be terribly difficult for anyone in the US to reach a deal with the Iraqi parliment. They must be able to reach some agreement among themselves for anything to be accomplished with us.

Fern

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I-snip-
And now when told its GWB"s way or the highway, the consensus choice is the high road.

I'm not sure what that ^ means.

But surely you have read info about the situation. The problem is not necessarily "GWB's way or the highway", the Iraqi parliment is fractured and they cannot agree among themselves what they want.

What one demands in an agreement, another opposes.

Under such circumstances it will be terribly difficult for anyone in the US to reach a deal with the Iraqi parliment. They must be able to reach some agreement among themselves for anything to be accomplished with us.

Fern

I don't pretend to speak for Lemon Law but the sticking point IIRC is the jurisdiction for prosecuting Americans (GIs & contractors) in IRAQI courts rather than the current system.

GWB will not budge on this point and hence the "My way or the highway" comment.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
-snip-
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

Seems to me the statement There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said is just a made up threat. After all, the US has had troops in many countries, merely at the request of that country.

Are you crazy? (No, don't bother to answer that.)

It's not a warning, it's reality.

The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq ends on Dec. 31. We have no legal basis for our presence after that. The UN has warned us that they will not grant an extension without an official request from Iraq.

Maliki himself does NOT have the authority to request an extension. The Iraqi parliment has passed a law forbidding him from doing so without their permission.

If no agreement is reached we MUST leave or we'll be there *illegally*.

This is fact, not something "made up".

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

Fern

Fern who gives a shit what the UN says.......

I would say its relevant since the US was the main driver in forming the League of Nations which became the UN. So I would say its relevant. It kind of makes us look STUPID if we don't follow a resolution of a body that we helped create. Do you not see it that way?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I-snip-
And now when told its GWB"s way or the highway, the consensus choice is the high road.

I'm not sure what that ^ means.

But surely you have read info about the situation. The problem is not necessarily "GWB's way or the highway", the Iraqi parliment is fractured and they cannot agree among themselves what they want.

What one demands in an agreement, another opposes.

Under such circumstances it will be terribly difficult for anyone in the US to reach a deal with the Iraqi parliment. They must be able to reach some agreement among themselves for anything to be accomplished with us.

Fern

I don't pretend to speak for Lemon Law but the sticking point IIRC is the jurisdiction for prosecuting Americans (GIs & contractors) in IRAQI courts rather than the current system.

GWB will not budge on this point and hence the "My way or the highway" comment.

Well, I'm reading that there are others issues too. For one, the Iraqis cannot agree among themselves for our withdrawal date/timeline.

Another detail I recall from reading an article yesterday is that some Iraqis support giving Maliki (or whomever would be in charge at the time) the flexibility to extend the withdrawal date if need be (increase in insurgent activity etc), others refuse to allow that option etc.

I don't believe the full details of the draft have been released publically, so we don't know all the problems. In fact, IIRC, there really isn't yet a draft to discuss. I read Maliki was hoping to get a draft by Sunday for his admin to consider.

I sense a lot of *gamesmenship* is going on and it may all be an effort to forestall any *real* agreement until the new USA Prez is elected. I believe GWB has claimed he doesn't need Congressional approval because the agreement will be neither a treaty nor binding on the next Prez. Given that, I think it likely the Iraqis are just using these negotiations to possition themselves for the next go-round with the new Prez. Why would they go out on a limb politically (they have elections coming too) when the deal evaporates in Feb '09?

Fern

 

[alien42]

this just highlights the stupidity of Palin making the repeated point that Obama wants to wave a white flag, surrender and give up on victory.

anyone who still supports this Iraq war needs to ask themselves what constitutes victory?

1. W declared 'Mission Accomplished' over five years ago.
2. Saddam Hussein was executed and the citizens of Iraq elected new govt officials
3. we trained the new Iraqi military and police
4. 10-23-08 - "Iraq has exported around 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) on average this month and shipments should increase slightly in November"*

there is nothing to gain in Iraq yet we lose on a daily basis due to the enormous cost of this war, both financial and to the soldiers and their families. it is time to let the Iraqi govt run their own land, that is 'victory' at this point. Palin needs to stop the 'more patriotic and American than thou' BS, it is disgusting and false negativity.

Obama has stressed that Afghanistan is where we need to focus and he is correct.

* http://www.forbes.com/afxnewsl.../10/23/afx5596899.html

 

[Lemon law]

To clarify what I mean, we have a situation where GWB wants a highly specific total package security agreement to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, which is unlikely to get passed by the Iraqi Parliament.

But in terms of getting a UN extension to continue the occupation, a more vague agreement, many terms to be negotiated later, would, IMHO, pass the Iraqi Parliament, and work as well to extend the occupation past Dec31, 2008.

In terms of the high road comment, the current bully boy tactics of GWB is and remains the low road the Iraqi Parliament is unlikely to take.

 

[Lemon law]

I also have to agree with alien42, its time to start transitioning down the role of US troops in Iraq. Leaving behind enough men and equipment to makes sure none of Iraq's neighbors get greedy. We can send blackwater home, send all those contractors home, and also reduce our footprint and military patrols down to near zero. We could base our troops in uninhabited areas of Iraq or Kuwait, our new roles should be merely to protect Iraqi sovereignty.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To clarify what I mean, we have a situation where GWB wants a highly specific total package security agreement to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, which is unlikely to get passed by the Iraqi Parliament.

But in terms of getting a UN extension to continue the occupation, a more vague agreement, many terms to be negotiated later, would, IMHO, pass the Iraqi Parliament, and work as well to extend the occupation past Dec31, 2008.

In terms of the high road comment, the current bully boy tactics of GWB is and remains the low road the Iraqi Parliament is unlikely to take.

Given that time is running out on his admin, do you think GWB should just drop the "highly specific total package" idea?

Should he instead try for a temporary extension of the staus quo?

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To clarify what I mean, we have a situation where GWB wants a highly specific total package security agreement to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, which is unlikely to get passed by the Iraqi Parliament.

But in terms of getting a UN extension to continue the occupation, a more vague agreement, many terms to be negotiated later, would, IMHO, pass the Iraqi Parliament, and work as well to extend the occupation past Dec31, 2008.

In terms of the high road comment, the current bully boy tactics of GWB is and remains the low road the Iraqi Parliament is unlikely to take.

Given that time is running out on his admin, do you think GWB should just drop the "highly specific total package" idea?

Should he instead try for a temporary extension of the staus quo?

Fern

The Iraqi gov't and citizens are opposed to the status quo.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
-snip-
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

Seems to me the statement There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said is just a made up threat. After all, the US has had troops in many countries, merely at the request of that country.

Are you crazy? (No, don't bother to answer that.)

It's not a warning, it's reality.

The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq ends on Dec. 31. We have no legal basis for our presence after that. The UN has warned us that they will not grant an extension without an official request from Iraq.

Maliki himself does NOT have the authority to request an extension. The Iraqi parliment has passed a law forbidding him from doing so without their permission.

If no agreement is reached we MUST leave or we'll be there *illegally*.

This is fact, not something "made up".

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

Fern

Yes a dictator could do so much better. Saddam

Also it seems you are arguing against that which we have, democracy and balance of power. Just my opinion from your words.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To clarify what I mean, we have a situation where GWB wants a highly specific total package security agreement to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, which is unlikely to get passed by the Iraqi Parliament.

But in terms of getting a UN extension to continue the occupation, a more vague agreement, many terms to be negotiated later, would, IMHO, pass the Iraqi Parliament, and work as well to extend the occupation past Dec31, 2008.

In terms of the high road comment, the current bully boy tactics of GWB is and remains the low road the Iraqi Parliament is unlikely to take.

Given that time is running out on his admin, do you think GWB should just drop the "highly specific total package" idea?

Should he instead try for a temporary extension of the staus quo?

Fern

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a word yes, because GWB is unlikely to get any more. And while heyheybooboo does have a point about the Iraqi people being opposed to the current status quo, they are in deep disagreement among themselves about their exact future direction and also tend to feel they are not quite ready to strike out on their own. Which is why our next President is the one who has the right to start his own dialog with the Iraqi people. And a more specific agreement between Iraqi people and our new commander and chief may or may not be possible in the near term of calender year 2009, but our new President should not be restrained by any last minute agreements made by GWB.

 

[Genx87]

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

I think you missed the beauty of it. They modeled something after our own govt

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Genx87

All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.

I think you missed the beauty of it. They modeled something after our own govt

Looks like I wasn't the only one to catch that

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Robor
I hope Iraq calls their bluff or at least pushes any deal back after the election.

Here is a man . To suite his own agenda. He wants to see peace held back . Ya whats a few more American lives as long as we don't settle befor Dems have the white house.

Your an American we can be proud of.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Robor
I hope Iraq calls their bluff or at least pushes any deal back after the election.

Here is a man . To suite his own agenda. He wants to see peace held back . Ya whats a few more American lives as long as we don't settle befor Dems have the white house.

Your an American we can be proud of.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nemesis, the cause of peace is not going to be advanced by some unrealistic agreement forced down Iraqi throats, if anything it will impede the path to a lasting settlement.

The next US president will do better if he starts out with a clean piece of paper, because after 1/20/2009, GWB&co will be gone. Along with his my way or the highway garbage that alienates everyone.