View Full Version : Will U.S. Accept Less Safety For Our Troops?

Gayle in MD
06-22-2008, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The White House said President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki discussed the talks Thursday via secured video teleconference and affirmed their commitment to completing the deal.

Nevertheless, the two sides remain far apart on core issues, including the number of bases where the United States will have a presence, and U.S. demands for immunity from Iraqi law for American soldiers and contractors.

Other obstacles include U.S. authority to detain suspects, fight battles without Iraqi permission and control of the country's airspace.

Iraq's parliament must sign off on the deal by year's end _ and approval is by no means certain.

Opposition to the initial U.S. demands brought together rival Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders who all complain the deal would leave real power in American hands.

The oil minister, who is close to the country's powerful Shiite clerical leadership, told the British newspaper The Guardian this week that Iraq will demand the right to veto any U.S. military operation.

<span style="color: #990000">
'But American commanders believe they need such sweeping powers to protect U.S. soldiers in a combat zone.'

<span style="color: #000066">If Iraqis don't sign up for this, American power over military operations, Air space, and Detainee power, and we leave our troops there, it will be clear, according to the statements of our commanders, that our troops will not have the protection and flexibility they require, to be relatively safe in Iraq. Even if Iraqis sign up at the outset, this agreement will likely become a fragile, greatly opposed, policy within the Iraqi fragile government. </span>

Publicly, U.S. officials have expressed confidence they can find language that will satisfy the Iraqis on all major issues. But the negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of war and intense power struggles among rival ethnic groups in Iraq _ each with its own agenda.

<span style="color: #000066">'But the negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of war and intense power struggles among rival ethnic groups in Iraq _ each with its own agenda.' So what has been gained by the Surge?
Nothing has changed.

I believe Iraq will eventually ask that the UN request we remove our troops, once the agreement gains outrage from Iraqis, that is, if they ever agree in the first place.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some Sunni groups, for example, privately favor a continued American presence as a counterweight to Iran's influence among Shiites. Yet several leading Sunni politicians signed a letter to Congress insisting on a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal _ in part to needle al-Maliki on an nationalistic issue.

Shiite parties, in turn, believe the agreement would shore up American support for al-Maliki ahead of parliamentary elections next year _ a goal they seek. But Shiite leaders are also anxious to take over full control of their country.

Meanwhile, recent Iraqi military successes against al-Qaida in Mosul and Shiite extremists in the south have convinced some Shiite politicians they don't really need America.

"Iraq has another option that it may use," al-Maliki said recently. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."

<span style="color: #000066">I'd hate to have to be the president that inherits Bush's Messes! </span>