Negotiations Between US & Iraq - A Three Ring Circus

Discussion in 'Iraq' started by JimofPennsylvan, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. JimofPennsylvan
    Offline

    JimofPennsylvan VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Thanks Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +83
    President Bush is making a huge mistake seeking to achieve an agreement with Iraq on the U.S. military’s involvement in Iraq before he leaves office. He is putting in jeopardy the giant strides in security gains the U.S. and the Iraqi governments have made in reducing the violence and providing security in Iraq. There exists great sympathy for Muqtada al Sadr in so far as his anti-American agenda stance amongst Iraqis, no matter how unjust such anti-Americanism is. Pursuing this security agreement now just feeds this anti-American movement in Iraq and who knows how much violence will grow out of this movement. Moreover, the whole negotiation of this agreement has turned into an extremely counterproductive effort where reasonableness and responsible behavior is not ruling the day rather political pandering on both sides is. You have Maliki proclaiming he is not going to let the U.S. violate the Iraqi people’s sovereignty and stoking the Iraqi people’s national pride when there exists no dangers in that area for the Iraqi people, the American people’s intention are nothing but that of true friends of the Iraqi people on these issues. On the otherhand, you have Bush and his administration officials running around like their chickens with their heads cut-off trying to reach a deal so to try to preserve President Bush’s legacy on Iraq and change it from that of he left the American people and the world a super huge problem of what will become of that territory presently the country of Iraq that has enormous wealth and unfortunately an infinite potential to export Islamic extremism. You have the Administration’s diplomats willing to quickly throw away the protections of U.S. law for the private security staff that provide security to U.S. government personnel in Iraq without fully pleading their case and working to have what is right done by these people who should be considered our people, as dear to us as the people they protect (where is our nation’s character here?).

    The Iraqi and U.S. government should put off until six or maybe eight to nine months (allowing for Senate confirmations) after the next U.S. President takes office the deadline for reaching an agreement on this matter. In that time the security picture will be clearer the world will have a better picture of whether or not the current security gains in Iraq are holding and what are the capabilities of Iraq’s security forces and what assistance Iraq needs from the U.S.. Both the Iraqi and the American peoples are going to elect new governments this year, it is only fair to both these peoples and these new governments to let these new governments work out the agreement because these new government are the ones who are going to have to live with it and make it work. And this is really no small issue for the next U.S. president who is going to have to get Congress to pay for the U.S. involvement in Iraq; passage of Iraq war funding supplemental bills on occasion in the past have been just short of miraculous and it is going to be tougher to pass such bills in the future with the sky high energy prices and the economic downturn the country is and likely for quite a while to be experiencing and the ill will to government spending amongst Americans this will generate.

    Obviously, there is currently a lot of public posturing going on both on the Iraqi and the U.S. sides which is not facilitating a realistic, reasonable and good agreement being reached and hopefully if talks are put off for seven months the atmosphere for reaching a good and fair agreement will exists. Iraq is in a war; you have al Qaeda, Sunni, Shiite and other militant groups fighting to defeat the Iraq central government and the democratic, human rights based country it represents. To be fair to the American Armed forces, the Iraqi government can’t expect the American government to fight with one armed tied behind its back so to speak, it can’t accept effectiveness restrictions, when the American Army goes to war it goes to war with everything it has to defeat the enemy. The American people experienced effectiveness restrictions on the American Army in the Vietnam War and it was a disaster in terms of mission effectiveness and casualties, the American people will not accept such restrictions again. If the American Army has the enemy in its sights it must be allowed to capture or kill that enemy as it sees fit. If the American army captures enemy combatants it must be able to fully interrogate them and hold them until it is confident they pose no threat in the war. The American Army’s airplanes must have access to all of the country of Iraq so they can determine how enemy forces are being supplied and trained and be able to destroy those enemy forces and supplies wherever they are found before they have a chance to kill Iraqi civilians or American or Iraqi security personnel.

    In the alternative, the Iraqi Government is the supreme security authority in Iraq. If the Iraqi government doesn’t want U.S. ground forces operating in a certain community so be it, the U.S. army must comply. There must be mechanisms in place to coordinate military activities between U.S. and Iraqi security forces so members of those forces aren’t hurt by the other and effectiveness in the war is not undermined. There must be commitments by the U.S. to not launch military attacks against foreign countries from Iraq soil; however, their should be an exception if the Iraqi government approves such attacks – if the Iraq government is to meet their obligations to the American people whose sons and daughters are dying in this war the option to bomb Iran must be on the table if Iran trains and arms militants in Iraq. There must be safeguards in place to try to minimize as much as possible casualties to innocent Iraqi civilians. There must be safeguards in place to prevent the wrongful detainment of innocent Iraqi civilians. There must be guarantees that American Armed Forces personnel and agents of the U.S. government operating in Iraq will be aggressively criminally prosecuted for criminal behavior against Iraqis so that the human rights of Iraqis will be fully protected. It must be clear in the agreement when the Iraqi government no longer wants U.S. armed forces in Iraq, the U.S. armed forces will comply and leave Iraq.
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Given recent history, I presume you can imagine why many Iraqi have difficulty believing that, yes?
     
  3. Epsilon Delta
    Offline

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +364
    It makes me wonder, especially with "this anti-American movement in Iraq and who knows how much violence will grow out of this movement", after the country is savaged and sold to American and European oil companies, did anyone ever think about the violence that grew out of the American decision to invade and occupy Iraq? And now, of course, the Iraqis kinda don't want to be a client state, so the fact that the VAST majority of them (and of Americans too), want them out of their country should not be listened to because of the strides that have been made in trying to douse the fire that the very invasion started?

    But this one is just disgusting: "if the Iraq government is to meet their obligations to the American people whose sons and daughters are dying in this war the option to bomb Iran must be on the table if Iran trains and arms militants in Iraq." It's one erroneous thing to say that occupiers have rights, but that the occupied have OBLIGATIONS towards their occupiers? Jeeez, that is some fiery rhetoric. Isn't fueling ONE Iran-Iraq war enough? Does it have to be 2? So with the million or so casualties of the first war, the million or so casualties of this war, I guess expending one more million Iraqi lives isn't that big an issue for policy buffs. After all, when American Army goes to war it goes to war with everything it has to defeat the enemy, regardless of how many lives it ends.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    First of all, nice post.

    With ya' so far.

    But let me ask you...why do you think we seem to be supporting the Sunni, when they were the people who supported Saddam?

    Can you really blame the Shia for turning to Iran for succor when the Americans seem to be supporting Saddamites?

    A movement which I'll wager isn't exactly starving, anyway.


    Trust lost is hard to find...see Kurdish people

    What are the specifics of this "deal?" that the Shia most object to, exactly?


    Seems to me the above is one of the reasons the Chinese didn't much like the Western Powers all that much, too. Can you blame them?

    Basically we're giving every American Merc or worker in Iraq diplomatic immunity

    Well we can all see how Bush ( or any POTUS probably) would like to leave office on a high note, right? No agument about whether or not this is wise, but the motivation isn't necessarily impure even if its wrong headed.


    Sounds reasonable to me, given my near complete lack of understanding about what they're negotiating about.

    Yeah, makes sense




    Again, sounds quite reasonable


    Iraq is in a war; you have al Qaeda, Sunni, Shiite and other militant groups fighting to defeat the Iraq central government and the democratic, human rights based country it represents.

    And this was PREDICTABLE...that's what so pisses me off about this war and decision to invade.


    To be fair sending a conventional army to police a nation in a civil war is bound to create a mess for all parties concerned.

    Who blame the American troops for that? No so called liberal or conservative I know does. Many of us remember Viet Nam personally.


    Great minds think alike, I see.


    I object, as McCain does to torture.

    Beyond my paygrade.

    They could ask us to leave. Wish they hell they would to be frank. It's their country, after all.


    Again, above my station and training to comment on most of that.

    Seems logically sensible though.

    Nice post.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2008
  5. Wow
    Offline

    Wow BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    562
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +6
    There exists great sympathy for Muqtada al Sadr in so far as his anti-American agenda stance amongst Iraqis
    Al Sadr continues to murder innocent Iraqis, he will have the same fate as the Al Qaida. Sadr will be destroyed and 90% of the Iraqi people will do it.
     

Share This Page