BlackAsCoal
Gold Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 5,199
- 530
- 155
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have campaigned on leaving considerable US forces in Iraq for a considerable amount of time. With McCain, might be 100 years.
But the Iraqis have their own plans and they want US forces out of their country. They recognize they have the power to not only force foreign military out, but also to force the US into agreeing to US military and contractor personnel being prosecuted by Iraqi courts for serious crimes .. and if an agreement isn't signed by the end of this year, US troops may be confined to their barracks.
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle
The final draft of the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement on the US military presence represents an even more crushing defeat for the policy of the George W. Bush administration than previously thought, the final text reveals.
The final draft, dated Oct. 13, not only imposes unambiguous deadlines for withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011 but makes it extremely unlikely that a US non-combat presence will be allowed to remain in Iraq for training and support purposes beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all US combat forces.
Furthermore, Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. Pro-government Shiite parties, the top Shiite clerical body in the country, and a powerful movement led by nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that recently mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in protest against the pact, are all calling for its defeat.
At an Iraqi cabinet meeting Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said that the agreement would not submit it to the parliament in its current form. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told three news agencies Tuesday that the door was "pretty far closed" on further negotiations.
In the absence of an agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, US troops in Iraq will probably be confined to their bases once the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.
The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced US negotiating power in the final draft is the willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over US contractors and their employees and over US troops in the case of "major and intentional crimes" that occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement.
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle - by Gareth Porter
This means ..
McCain's 100 year wet dream was never a reality and anyone who'd been paying attention knew the Iraqis were never going to allow it. It was however, a useful political tool for democrats.
Obama's plans to leave as many as 80,000 troops in Iraq has also been booted out the door. Unbeknowst to many of his followers, Obama tried to get the Iraqis to delay an agreement on removing US troops until after the elections. Did he, like Reagan, violate the Logan Act?
He may have been better served by sticking to his original position on Iraq instead of his usual waffling.
The Iranian influence in Iraq will continue to grow and both Obama and McCain have increased the bluster against Iran.
It will be interesting to see if the rhetoric from either of them changes to reflect these new realities "on the ground"
But the Iraqis have their own plans and they want US forces out of their country. They recognize they have the power to not only force foreign military out, but also to force the US into agreeing to US military and contractor personnel being prosecuted by Iraqi courts for serious crimes .. and if an agreement isn't signed by the end of this year, US troops may be confined to their barracks.
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle
The final draft of the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement on the US military presence represents an even more crushing defeat for the policy of the George W. Bush administration than previously thought, the final text reveals.
The final draft, dated Oct. 13, not only imposes unambiguous deadlines for withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011 but makes it extremely unlikely that a US non-combat presence will be allowed to remain in Iraq for training and support purposes beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all US combat forces.
Furthermore, Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. Pro-government Shiite parties, the top Shiite clerical body in the country, and a powerful movement led by nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that recently mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in protest against the pact, are all calling for its defeat.
At an Iraqi cabinet meeting Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said that the agreement would not submit it to the parliament in its current form. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told three news agencies Tuesday that the door was "pretty far closed" on further negotiations.
In the absence of an agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, US troops in Iraq will probably be confined to their bases once the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.
The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced US negotiating power in the final draft is the willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over US contractors and their employees and over US troops in the case of "major and intentional crimes" that occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement.
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle - by Gareth Porter
This means ..
McCain's 100 year wet dream was never a reality and anyone who'd been paying attention knew the Iraqis were never going to allow it. It was however, a useful political tool for democrats.
Obama's plans to leave as many as 80,000 troops in Iraq has also been booted out the door. Unbeknowst to many of his followers, Obama tried to get the Iraqis to delay an agreement on removing US troops until after the elections. Did he, like Reagan, violate the Logan Act?
He may have been better served by sticking to his original position on Iraq instead of his usual waffling.
The Iranian influence in Iraq will continue to grow and both Obama and McCain have increased the bluster against Iran.
It will be interesting to see if the rhetoric from either of them changes to reflect these new realities "on the ground"
Last edited:
