US plans for Iraq - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 04-08-2008, 06:03 AM

from this morning's guardian:

Quote:

Secret US plan for military future in Iraq

Document outlines powers but sets no time limit on troop presence

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 authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation 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.

Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."

It is also likely to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection by US forces.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic Congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.

Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."

Significantly - given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter's close relations with the Iraqi administration's Shia parties - the draft agreement specifies that the "US does not seek to use Iraq territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states".

General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, is to face questioning from all three presidential candidates on Capitol Hill today when he reports to the Senate on his surge strategy, which increased US forces in Iraq by about 30,000 last year.

Both Clinton and Democratic rival Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain troop levels until the country is secure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa

this is most strange:
it looks to me like a duplication of the ineptness of the "planning" of the iraq war up to this point, and sounds curiously like what mccain has been saying about his view on the future of the american colonial occupation of the country.

the problems with it are obvious: it's open-endedness, it's authorization of continued unlimited detention of iraqis, it's seemingly contradictory statements (the americans want no long-term military presence in iraq, but will nonetheless be a long-term military presence in iraq).

the central questions are:
is edward kennedy right about this plan as a de facto security treaty that really should be ratified by congress?
why is the bush administration trying--it seems--to go around ratification?

do you agree with hillary clinton's assessment of this plan, as something that would "tie the hands" of the americans by locking the next president into an arrangement--of dubious legality, really, if the arguments concerning its status as treaty and not "plan" are legitimate.

what do you make of this outlined plan more generally?

host · 04-08-2008, 07:17 AM

roachboy, I'm tied up at the moment....participating in a discussion about a "racist" judge, and I'm still smarting from dealing with a "racist" pastor and the presidential candidate he compromised with his "hate" sermons.

In between, I did some research on "book banning", found that the usual suspects...Dobson's "Focus on the Family", and Bozell III's "family defense" group were heavily involved in picking the books to be banned, and I felt like my head was gonna explode, so I couldn't post about what I'd found out.

I was up late, posting over on the "McNamara war criminal" thread, some pretty startling stuff that indicates that the "leadership" you register concern about in your OP here, has succeeded in destroying the US military JAG system of justice, in it's zeal to obtain "convictions only"....no acquittals....in it's upcoming Gitmo "show trials".

Please understand then, why I am not surprised in the least, about the material you have posted. A new US president, if it is not John GW McSame, is going to have to issue a blanket edict, next January, nullifying every secret and public document that Mr. Bush has signed as president, if it was not first ratified by congress, including all signing statements.

As I posted last night in the McNamara thread....there is enough new shit coming to light now to keep impeachment, "on the table", even at this late date.....

hiredgun · 04-08-2008, 08:41 AM

Although the political rhetoric, even on the Republican side, wants to paint this war as a short-term commitment (remember how the surge was sold? tactical shift + troop increase = security -> political reconciliation -> draw-down of troops), it has been clear for a long time that inertia is on the side of a long military presence. See, for example, the fortress-like super-embassy that is being built in Baghdad. That is not a reasonable investment unless we are digging in for the long haul.

What bothers me more than the mere fact that we will stay for a long time is that this fact does not appear to be coherently connected to some larger strategy. We are [I think rightly] pinging the Iranians for more talks in a fairly public way right now, a fact the Iranians are happy to flaunt as a sign of US desperation. That Mahdi's recent offer to disband his army could happen without Iranian blessing is fairly inconceivable. Whatever their public stance of we-never-make-mistakes and we-don't-bargain-with-thugs, I think the administration has understood for some time the inescapable fact that we must involve Iran in any settlement of Iraq. But if that is the case, then why are we planning for this large and interminable troop presence? Is it a bargaining chip to show our seriousness, to be negotiated down with the Iranians? Is it a contingency plan?

The _feeling_ I get from the scant evidence is that this presence is going to continue either way, that the plans for a long-term presence have now picked up their own momentum. Perhaps this is part of a considered strategy to demonstrate our resolve - after all, diplomacy and strength go hand in hand. But on the other hand, it is also possible that different pieces of a stubborn bureaucracy are moving in different directions with no central leadership and coordination, and no definition, internal or external, of just what it is we are trying to accomplish here.

I think it is impossible for us to really know from where we stand, but the track record of the administration is not favorable in this regard.

04-08-2008, 08:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Although the political rhetoric, even on the Republican side, wants to paint this war as a short-term commitment (remember how the surge was sold? tactical shift + troop increase = security -> political reconciliation -> draw-down of troops), it has been clear for a long time that inertia is on the side of a long military presence. See, for example, the fortress-like super-embassy that is being built in Baghdad. That is not a reasonable investment unless we are digging in for the long haul. What bothers me more than the mere fact that we will stay for a long time is that this fact does not appear to be coherently connected to some larger strategy. We are [I think rightly] pinging the Iranians for more talks in a fairly public way right now, a fact the Iranians are happy to flaunt as a sign of US desperation. That Mahdi's recent offer to disband his army could happen without Iranian blessing is fairly inconceivable. Whatever their public stance of we-never-make-mistakes and we-don't-bargain-with-thugs, I think the administration has understood for some time the inescapable fact that we must involve Iran in any settlement of Iraq. But if that is the case, then why are we planning for this large and interminable troop presence? Is it a bargaining chip to show our seriousness, to be negotiated down with the Iranians? Is it a contingency plan? The _feeling_ I get from the scant evidence is that this presence is going to continue either way, that the plans for a long-term presence have now picked up their own momentum. Perhaps this is part of a considered strategy to demonstrate our resolve - after all, diplomacy and strength go hand in hand. But on the other hand, it is also possible that different pieces of a stubborn bureaucracy are moving in different directions with no central leadership and coordination, and no definition, internal or external, of just what it is we are trying to accomplish here. I think it is impossible for us to really know from where we stand, but the track record of the administration is not favorable in this regard. Last edited by hiredgun; 04-08-2008 at 01:54 PM..

04-08-2008, 07:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
host Banned	roachboy, I'm tied up at the moment....participating in a discussion about a "racist" judge, and I'm still smarting from dealing with a "racist" pastor and the presidential candidate he compromised with his "hate" sermons. In between, I did some research on "book banning", found that the usual suspects...Dobson's "Focus on the Family", and Bozell III's "family defense" group were heavily involved in picking the books to be banned, and I felt like my head was gonna explode, so I couldn't post about what I'd found out. I was up late, posting over on the "McNamara war criminal" thread, some pretty startling stuff that indicates that the "leadership" you register concern about in your OP here, has succeeded in destroying the US military JAG system of justice, in it's zeal to obtain "convictions only"....no acquittals....in it's upcoming Gitmo "show trials". Please understand then, why I am not surprised in the least, about the material you have posted. A new US president, if it is not John GW McSame, is going to have to issue a blanket edict, next January, nullifying every secret and public document that Mr. Bush has signed as president, if it was not first ratified by congress, including all signing statements. As I posted last night in the McNamara thread....there is enough new shit coming to light now to keep impeachment, "on the table", even at this late date.....