US considering Iraq security deal

Infinite Chaos · Oct 17, 2008

The US says it is considering a draft agreement with Iraq on the role of its troops there after the UN mandate for their presence expires later this year.
Details have not been released, but officials say it would see US combat forces withdrawn from Iraqi towns and cities by the middle of 2009.

The troops would withdraw completely from Iraq by the end of 2011, they add. Defence Secretary Robert Gates has begun briefing key members of Congress, although their approval is not needed.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is also said to be pressing Iraqi leaders to accept the deal.
BBC Story

When the British started counting down their role and troop sizes in Basra they got slated in some quarters but they have handed over to the Iraqis and although there were still some attacks the Iraqis have generally got on with business - the British soldiers had become a focus of attack.

Now the US is looking at the slow process of withdrawal too - it has a larger contingent of troops there and the Iraqis are going to have to step up to the mark too in looking after their own security.

On a final note - am I wrong but did Presidential candidate Barack Obama not get slated for saying he wanted a timetable for a similar withdrawal in a similar period of time???

Infinite Chaos · Oct 17, 2008

In the meantime...

Iran 'bribing Iraqi politicians'
The commander of US military forces in Iraq has accused Iran of trying to bribe Iraqi legislators into rejecting a security deal with the US.
Gen Ray Odierno told the Washington Post that many intelligence reports suggested "pay offs" were being made, but that he had no definitive proof.

The US and Iraq governments are negotiating a security pact to allow US forces to stay beyond the end of 2008.

Iraq's parliament must ratify the agreement for it to take effect.

American and Iraqi officials have said they are close to finalising the long-awaited agreement before the expiry of a UN Security Council resolution that sanctioned the US troop presence in Iraq.

One of the most sensitive issues is over immunity for US troops who break Iraqi law.

'Utilising contacts'

Gen Odierno said Iran was utilising its contacts with the many Shia Iraqi politicians who took refuge in Iran when Saddam Hussein was in power to try to influence the Iraqi parliament's eventual vote on the deal.

"We know that there are many relationships with people here for many years going back to when Saddam was in charge, and I think they're utilising those contacts to attempt to influence the outcome of the potential vote in the council of representatives," he said in an interview with the Washington Post.

"We get reports of people coming in to pay off people to vote against it. Whether it's true or not I have no specific proof, but there are many intelligence reports that say that activity is going on."

The US has previously said that Tehran is providing training and weapons - including advanced roadside bombs - to Iraqi insurgents.

Iran has denied the accusations and says that US troops in Iraq are the cause of instability there.
BBC Middle East pages

While there is some truth to what Iran says about US troops being a focus for instability, Iran is most probably guilty in "helping" to direct hotheads towards the focus - if not helping arm and train the hotheads who want to go after US troops.

SquareMelon · Oct 27, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
On a final note - am I wrong but did Presidential candidate Barack Obama not get slated for saying he wanted a timetable for a similar withdrawal in a similar period of time???

Senator Obama would remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months and complete by the summer of 2010. Though note that he talks only about combat brigades not total military presence. According to his plan, a US military presence will continue in Iraq indefinitely.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism

The way things going with the agreement, Obama may have a chance to negotiate it if the agreement does not get passed by Iraq parliament. The Iraqi government has not yet forwarded it to parliament and is still collecting feedback from the different political parties.

The U.S. military has advised Iraqi authorities that it will have to shut down security and service operations in Iraq if the year ends without a security agreement or a renewed U.N. mandate for American forces, Iraqi officials said Monday.

Iraqi politicians are considering a draft agreement that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq through 2011 and give the Iraqis a greater role in security operations.

If parliament does not approve the deal before the U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31, there will be no legal basis for the U.S. to operate in Iraq.

But some key Shiite politicians say the agreement cannot win approval in its current form and have asked for unspecified changes.

The Associated Press: US warns Iraq of problems if security pact fails

Real Talk · Oct 31, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
In the meantime...
While there is some truth to what Iran says about US troops being a focus for instability, Iran is most probably guilty in "helping" to direct hotheads towards the focus - if not helping arm and train the hotheads who want to go after US troops.

And legitimately so. I would like to think that were the United States to be invaded, that Canada would be of the uptmost assistance in reppelling a foreign agressor. It would be in its own interests (balanching out the invading aggressor and making him 2 weak to further penetrate the region), and widely considered the right thing to do out of neighbourhood solidarity. As for the pro shi'ite bias. Everywhere America acts, it acts in favor of those groups that it thinks are most like them and/or which groups are most compatable with there interests. Why should Iran not be involved, and why is how its involved particularly abhorant?

And if you want to imply they act with an intention of promoting civil war, or attacks against Iraqi civilians, you will have to prove it.

US considering Iraq security deal

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

SquareMelon

Member

Real Talk

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency