The Asia Times ran an article in the 18 November edition online that took a look at the U.S. - Iraqi security pact just passed by the Iraqi cabinet. The parliament is expected to vote on the measure next week.
Even if the deal survives the Iraqi parliament, I doubt it will survive in an Obama administration. Elements of the pact, as reported by the Asia Times, include the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq's cities by mid-2009, and withdrawal from all of Iraq by the end of 2011. No big issues there, but then there's this:
"The full text of the agreement has not been published, but the general parameters include a 10-year mandate for the US to guarantee the security of Iraq, in exchange for the right to use Iraqi land, waters and skies to base and train troops and store military equipment. In addition to 50 US bases, the deal calls for long-term American supervision of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense."
And this:
"This gives the Americans the almost exclusive right to rebuild Iraq, train its forces and maintain personnel on Iraqi territory. It gives the US the right to arrest or persecute any Iraqi working against its interests, within Iraq, and pledges to protect Iraq from any war, coup or revolution. It also gives the US control of Iraqi airspace."
10 years is a long time, and that's a lot of control for the U.S. I suspect President-elect Obama will probably want to relook this.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
I suspicion that your are quite correct! Their is also another devil in the details as I understand them and this giving the Iraqis control over the US bases. I don't think our commanders will like this pact.
If there is nothing in there to allow the US to either get oil cheap, or
set production targets to break OPEC's hold then what is the gain
to uys?
stay there we spend money and lives, but we have a foothold
to take action if we need it in the future. If we leave we are
more vulnerable to possible chaos that occurs in the region.
How did all American options turn to sh*t seemingly almost
overnight like this?
Bruce,
Our options don't look good because the Iraqis have never once wanted us there. We imposed out will on them.
What about the Democrats who voted for the war? Are you going to let them off the hook? You know, prominent Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Do they get a pass?
It may be hypocritical in your mind but it is entirely accurate! Without that resolution passing to give Bush authority, he had no leverage to deal with Saddam. Therefore, many, and not just democrats, voted for the resolution to give the president that leverage. They mistakenly believed that their trust would not be misplaced and that before any invasion, the president would return to the Congress.
Had I been in congress, I might have voted for the resolution, but I would expect much more honorable and ethical use of that document by the president! Part of the idea was to give the president the power and that in exercising it he would be able to avert war! It was not known at the time of the vote that he had no intention of attempting to avoid war and that he would kick the UN inspectors out in order to invade.
I would hope that congress has learned its lesson from this and never again gives a president a blank check, giving up all congressional control. Only congress has the power to declare war and Bush calls this a war. Where is the declaration?
Maybe no one wants to think about it ... that's pretty typical of Americans
these days.
No one answered by question about oil? If we failed to secure an oil
stake then we have lost the window for energy security as well, let alone
indepenedence. This country is going to be gone without oil for at least
the next 10 years.
"It may be hypocritical in your mind but it is entirely accurate!"
But it is hypocritical James.
Throughout the Clinton presidency prominent Democrats, including Clinton and Gore, railed against the Saddam Hussein regime and advocated the use of force to remove him from power. Why didn't they act on those beliefs? Negligence, maybe?
A majority of the Congress voted for the war, including a substantial number of Democrats. They had access to the same information as the Republicans. Hillary and Biden were two of the staunchest advocates of regime change. To give them a pass while condemning Republicans is partisan and hypocritical. NO ONE in the Congress did their job properly and it is wrong to blame just one party.
"They mistakenly believed that their trust would not be misplaced and that before any invasion, the president would return to the Congress."
As I told Joe, these are not stupid people on Capitol Hill. Why would they expect a return to the Congress when they voted for an authorization to use force? The president never hid his intention to remove Hussein from power. This was not some blind side that they didn't see coming. That notion is disingenuous at best.
"It was not known at the time of the vote that he had no intention of attempting to avoid war and that he would kick the UN inspectors out in order to invade."
He gave Saddam every opportunity to comply. Hussein failed to do so. It is inaccurate to say that he had no intention of attempting to avoid war.
"Only congress has the power to declare war and Bush calls this a war. Where is the declaration?"
Whether congress declares war or not, it's still a war. Just like it was a war when Truman sent troops into Korea without a declaration of war from Congress. Just like it was a war when Kennedy sent troops into Vietnam without a declaration of war from Congress. And just like it was a war when Clinton sent our air force to the Balkans without a declaration of war from Congress.
"...Democrats had to vote for the war based on political principals, besides they were lied to as well, or have plausible deniability that they were lied to."
Really? Where's the proof of a lie? Even Pelosi and Reid wouldn't entertain Kucinich's notion that the president LIED. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD. All of his regional neighbors believed he had WMD. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. The question isn't whether or not he had them, but what happened to them? When I watch George Tenet on 60 Minutes say he believed Saddam had WMD, and he believed he knew where they were, and advised the president of as much, how does that make a lie?
"Why do you have to try to make this about the Democrats though ... it only makes you look ridiculously partisan?"
I'm not making this about just Democrats. Joe made it about just Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes surrounding Iraq....on both sides of the aisle.
Blaming the CIA was just using them as fall guys for this failure, which
was ordered to go. The weapons inspectors all said there were no WMD.
I do not know why you even bother to try to refute it. Remember the
British guy who claimed the intelligence was "sexed-up"?
No, the data is one thing, being commander in chief and deciding to
so what Bush did is quite another, and much of the pain that America
is going to feel ... maybe for a decade or so ... maybe even longer is
directly this responsibility.
The idea of starting two wars at the same time was ridiculous, even
if Saddam did have WMD. And they knew he did not.
The idea of driving the deficit up has been the goal of the Republicans
since the 90's, saying the economy could handle a certain maximum
deficit. This is way way outside the responsible actions of a chief
executive, commander in chief. The intelligence story was BS. Tenet
knew that Powell was lying when he in the UN and so did Powell.
I just have to assume that for some reason you trust and support
the Republicans in these orchestrations of the American economy
for some reason.
"I don't believe anything that was said about the intelligence agencies."
So was Tenet lying when he went on 60 Minutes (after he was fired) and said he believed Saddam had WMD and that he advised the President of that opinion?
"The weapons inspectors all said there were no WMD."
They said they couldn't find them, or evidence of them. A subtle but distinct difference.
"The idea of starting two wars at the same time was ridiculous, even
if Saddam did have WMD."
But Pentagon doctrine said the United States had the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously AND deal with a small number of lesser conflicts if they should arise. That was existing doctrine at the time, so the notion of doing so was hardly ridiculous.
"This is way way outside the responsible actions of a chief
executive, commander in chief."
Yet prominent Democrats, including the incoming Administration's folks, are advocating more deficit spending right now.
"Tenet knew that Powell was lying when he in the UN and so did Powell."
Yet both of them have publicly said differently. How is it that you know better? Or are you speculating?
No, the weapons inspectors when you listen to what they said,
they said there were unaccounted for WMD, but there was no
evidence that this was deliberate attempt to maintain the program.
Cheney used the fact that even if there was a 1% chance of a
WMD program existing it was enough to justify whatever the
administration wanted to do.
If you looked at the US nuclear program there is a substantial
amount of nuclear material, plutonium missing, it does not mean
that we have a secret program or that terrorists have stolen it.
That is like what Iraq had. Look at their technology and record
keeping. Of course it was not perfect.
I have said a long as this conversation has existed that Saddam
intended to re-constitute his weapons programs at some point.
I know that, it is obvious. Whether that justified what we have
done in Iraq, and to us is the question, and the answer is no.
The Pentagon and the intelligence agencies were being purged
of everyone who even so much as questioned the administration
Greg, I am sure you are aware of this, yet you are not putting
2 and 2 together.
In times of recession deficit spending is justified, do I really have
to tutor you in economics?
It is generally held that in good times one raises taxes and pays
off deficits, to prepare for bad times and get into good shape.
This is what Bush/Cheney did not do, they ran up the deficit when
we knew bad times were coming. If you want to say they did
not know, I think you are being foolish.
You are the one who is speculating, at least my speculations
fit the facts my friend.
"I think Tenet was lying about believing that Saddam had WMD."
You BELIEVE he was lying despite his assertions. Where's the evidence that Tenet was lying when he said he believed Saddam had WMD?
If the WMD were unaccounted for, it simply means we didn't know where they were. It doesn't mean he didn't have them.
"Cheney used the fact that even if there was a 1% chance of a WMD program existing it was enough to justify whatever the administration wanted to do."
What about the fact that Clinton, Gore, and several top Senate Democrats said throughout the late 1990s that Saddam needed to be removed from power by force if necessary? Bush continued a Clinton principle that he inherited; only difference--Bush acted on the principle. Does that make Clinton negligent?
"Of course it was not perfect."
It went beyond that. Saddam was the master of obstruction.
"Whether that justified what we have done in Iraq, and to us is the question, and the answer is no."
The answer to you is no. The answer to me is a resounding yes.
"In times of recession deficit spending is justified, do I really have
to tutor you in economics?"
No, I don't need a tutor. But it amazes me that the deficit spending was wrong during the entire campaign, according to Democratic rhetoric, but as soon as November 4 had passed, it became okay. What a coincidence!
Also wrong about the unaccounted for WMD. They were odd lots that were reported by the inspectors. By this kind of reasoning the US has WMD lurking somewhere because we have missing and unaccounted for nuclear material. Unaccounted for does not mean in available and in use. If you dropped $300 of change during your lifetime does that mean you have access to that $300?
No, the only difference was that Bush acted rashing, recklessly, expensively and needlessly on Iraq. And then did not even bother to correct course or do anything but support Rumself for almost 3 years while he and his advisors were in denial. Hell, this is lives and treasure here.
Whatever Saddam was doing about obstruction the thing is that he was immobiled and not a threat.
I was for getting Saddam out to, I just never thought a full out assault was a way to do it, particularly when we were fighting in Afghanistans as well.
No deficit spending on the war was not OK, there was pragmatically no way politically Bush could be stopped. Now that the results are you your refuse to acknowlege them.
Bush's whole term is a referendum on far-right wing Republican thinking. The answer right now is not to try to back justify Bush, there is no justification for the idiocy of this man. He is still trying to screw up the country and the environment as much as possible in his last days. The answer is to give Obama some clearance and support and let's see what he can do, not look back to what is hands down the worst time in American history, and the most avoidable as well, such a needless disaster.
I'll be the first to criticise Obama, and there is no way when he leaves office that I will be trying to ignore or justify his mistakes or turn them into successes. I just do not get Republicans.
"The evidence is that most of the people in any position to really know either said Saddam did not have WMD unequivocally, or that the chance was minimal."
That's not what Tenet said, and he would certainly have a person in a position to know.
"Unaccounted for does not mean in available and in use."
It also does not mean not available and not in use.
"Whatever Saddam was doing about obstruction the thing is that he was immobiled and not a threat."
At what cost? Pilots being fired on everday enforcing the no fly zone? A continued threat to his neighbors? The repression and murder of his people? Tens of millions of dollars in containment costs? Twelve years was too long.
"...there is no justification for the idiocy of this man."
He's not an idiot at all.
"...what is hands down the worst time in American history...."
Opinion.
You have the gall to ask at what price ... that is utterly laughable!
"If he's not an idiot that means this was all deliberate."
That makes no sense. The two do not necessarily correlate.
"You have the gall to ask at what price...."
Yes, I do. At what price?
"The price of maintaining the no fly zone was minimal Greg, and you know that as well as I do."
No, I don't know that. I do know that it was costing us millions of dollars a month in costs for jet fuel, stationing of personnel, basing rights, aircraft maintenance, etc. Not to mention that Saddam's troops were firing on our pilots every day (an act of war).
"Certain many orders of magnitude less than what we have done in Iraq..."
But how long should we have continued the charade? Was 12 years not enough?
Greg, quit being ridiculous. Millions of dollars a month is not millions of dollars an hour, and tell me how many men we lost keeping a lid on Saddam? I am done discussing this as you are just being ridiculous.
> But how long should we have continued the charade? Was 12 years not enough?
That is the real good question, and the answer should have been some combination of the many plans that were commissioned to take care of that problem. Go see the documentary "No End In Sight" for a grasp of how many experts and plans there were that were tossed away by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for how to win the peace in Iraq.
Taking on two wars are once is idiotic on its face, and proved to be idiotic in its execution as well. We would have done better to prevent the Iraq oil for food program or get evidence of its corruption, and take it the UN and blockade Iraq on our own than the invasion we did. That would have hurt Saddam more and made the country easier to pacify when we were done with Afghanistan, now we may not have either, and we have bankrupted ourselves.
Anyway at this point your replies have really gotten beyond what I think are normal discussion. if you feel you have to have the last work by just being contradictory or ignoring reality feel free, but if you want to have the discussion you article warrants you should be prepared to deal with facts that you do not like along with facts you do.
"Greg, quit being ridiculous."
I'm not being ridiculous. You're talking solely in terms of dollars. But the costs of containment go beyond just dollar amounts. Again, when is enough, enough?
"That is the real good question, and the answer should have been some combination of the many plans that were commissioned to take care of that problem."
Two words: 12 years....
"Taking on two wars are once is idiotic on its face, and proved to be idiotic in its execution as well."
Yet that has been Pentagon doctrine since long before GWB.
"...take it the UN...."
We did. For 12 years....
"if you feel you have to have the last work by just being contradictory or ignoring reality feel free...."
It's not that I have to have the last word. But when I feel a comment is erroneous, I feel the need to respond. And you're doing plenty of ignoring reality as well, my friend.
"...you should be prepared to deal with facts that you do not like along with facts you do."
I can deal with facts I do not like. Can you?
no the pentagon said they were prepared if needed to fight two wars ... that was not a suggestion.
i like all facts and i am not above finding or absorbing new information ... can you?
"ok then try comparing containment versus war based on lives lost, on either side, or injuries, or the price of oil - world stability ..."
In the case of Iraq, I think we did the world a favor by getting rid of Saddam. There were plenty of reasons for him to go. Clinton adopted a policy of regime change in Iraq, by force if necessary. He failed to act on what he said he believed in. George W. Bush inherited that policy and decided enough was enough, twelve years was too long. I don't have a problem with that.
"no the pentagon said they were prepared if needed to fight two wars ... that was not a suggestion."
The Pentagon never makes suggestions about which wars to fight. That is why we have a civilian commander in chief. He decides. The Pentagon tells him what they are capable of and he decides when and where to employ their capabilities. Or are you advocating that we do away with civilian control of the military?
"i like all facts and i am not above finding or absorbing new information ... can you?"
Yes.
Yeah, the so the criteria for war is whether we are doing the world a favor?
There were lots of reasons for Saddam to go, the ones that tipped Bush
into actually making war were phoney. The cost was not worth the
benefit by any stretch of the imagination.
Why didn't we attack the USSR then, that went on for 50 years?
Because we can is no excuse to order a war of choice, when we are
also at war with another nation. Your thinking is really confused here.
"Yeah, the so the criteria for war is whether we are doing the world a favor?"
It's not the sole criteria, but the effect on other nations is a consideration.
"The cost was not worth the benefit by any stretch of the imagination."
That's a subjective opinion, and one I happen to disagree with.
"Because we can is no excuse to order a war of choice, when we are
also at war with another nation."
But we didn't invade Iraq just because we could.
"Your thinking is really confused here."
No, it's quite clear.
Saying that is wrong for two reasons,
1) No one knows why we invaded Iraq because no one has access to the mind of the lying SOB in the White House.
2) We surely would not have invaded Iraq if we knew we could not prevail and prevail relatively easily.
Your thinking has been confused this whole discussion, now your statements are getting confused too. ;-)
"Saying that is wrong for two reasons, 1) No one knows why we invaded Iraq because no one has access to the mind of the lying SOB in the White House."
Which makes your statement speculation and means my statement is not necessarily wrong.
"2) We surely would not have invaded Iraq if we knew we could not prevail and prevail relatively easily."
Again, speculation. This president has been nothing if not consistent when it comes to acting on what he believes in. Right or wrong, if he believes something is the right thing to do, he does it. Period. All indications are that he believed removing Saddam was the right course of action, as did his predecessor.
We would not have engaged in a war of choice if we were not sure we would win, easily. The US has learned this from Korea and Viet Nam.
How far are you going to go with this silliness?
I'm not being ridiculous. I'm being very serious.
"We would not have engaged in a war of choice if we were not sure we would win, easily."
I disagree. "Easily" is a matter of degree. It is a subjective term that will hold different meaning for different people. There is no question that President Bush acts on his beliefs. One may not agree with his beliefs, but there is no denying that he sticks by them.
And every indication is that he truly believed Saddam had to go. Saying that he wouldn't have acted on that belief based on a subjective definition of "easily" is speculation that contradicts everything he has demonstrated over the past 8 years.
"How far are you going to go with this silliness?"
As long as you continue to offer speculative arguments, I will continue to counter them.