Details of Iraq pact reveal US debacle

[seathru]

Since the election is less than 2 weeks away, and the Fox news restarted reporting the progress in Iraq, I think someone might be interested to know the current status of the Iraq-U.S. agreement:


Details of Iraq pact reveal US debacle
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON -

The final draft, dated October 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, Shi'ite 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 Shi'ite parties, the top Shi'ite clerical body in the country and a powerfulmovement led by nationalist cleric Muqtada 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 on Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said the draft would not be submitted to parliament in its current form. But US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told three news agencies on 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 on December 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.

But even that concession is not enough to satisfy anti-occupation sentiments across all Shi'ite political parties. Sunni politicians hold less decisive views on the pact, and Kurds are supportive.

Bush administration policymakers did not imagine when the negotiations began formally in March that its bargaining position on the issue of the US military presence could have turned out to be so weak in relation with its own "client" regime in Baghdad.

They were confident of being able to legitimize a US presence in Iraq for decades after the fighting had ended, just as they did in South Korea. Gates had declared in June 2007 that US troops would be in Iraq "for a protracted period of time".

The secret US draft handed to Iraqi officials March 7 put no limit on either the number of US troops in Iraq or the duration of their presence or their activities. It would have authorized US forces to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain certain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security", according to an April 8 article in The Guardian quoting from a leaked copy of the draft.

When Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanded a timetable for complete US withdrawal in early July, the White House insisted that it would not accept such a timetable and that any decision on withdrawal "will be conditions-based". It was even hoping to avoid a requirement for complete withdrawal in the agreement, as reflected in false claims to media July 17 that Bush and Maliki had agreed on the objective of "further reduction of US combat forces from Iraq" rather than complete withdrawal.

By early August, however, Bush had already reduced its negotiating aims. The US draft dated August 6, which was translated and posted on the Internet by Iraqi activist Raed Jarrar, demanded the inclusion of either "targeted times" or "time targets" to refer to the dates for withdrawal of US forces from all cities, town and villages and for complete combat troop withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting that they were not deadlines.

When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Baghdad on August 21, the US accepted for the first time a firm date of 2011 for complete withdrawal, giving up the demand for ambiguous terms. However, the August 6 draft included a provision that the US could ask Iraq to "extend" the date for complete withdrawal of combat troops, based on mutual review of "progress" in achieving the withdrawal.

Because it had not yet been removed from the text, US officials continued to claim to reporters that the date was "conditions-based", as Karen DeYoung reported in the Washington Post on August 22.

The administration also continued to hope for approval of a residual force. American officials told DeYoung the deal would leave "tens of thousands of US troops inside Iraq in supporting roles ... for an unspecified time". That hope was based on a paragraph of the August 6 draft providing that the Iraqi government could request such a force, with the joint committee for operations and coordination determining the "tasks and level of the troops ..."
But the October 13 final draft, a translation of which was posted by Jarrar on his website October 20, reveals that the Bush administration has been forced to give up its aims of softening the deadline for withdrawal and of a residual non-combat force in the country. Unlike the August 6 draft, the final text treats any extension of that date as a modification of the agreement, which could be done only "in accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries".

That is an obvious reference to approval by the Iraqi parliament.

Given the present level of opposition to the agreement within the Shi'ite community, that provision offers scant hope of a residual US non-combat force in Iraq after 2011.

Another signal of Iraqi intentions is a provision of the final draft limiting the duration of the agreement to three years - a date coinciding with the deadline for complete withdrawal from Iraq. The date can be extended only by a decision made by the "constitutional procedures in both countries".

The final draft confirms the language of the August 6 draft requiring that all US military operations be subject to the approval of the Iraqi government and coordinated with Iraqi authorities through a joint US-Iraqi committee.

The negotiating text had already established by August 6 that US troops could not detain anyone in the country without a "warrant issued by the specialized Iraqi authorities in accordance with Iraqi law" and required that the detainees be turned over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. The October 13 "final draft" goes even further, requiring that any detention by the US, apart from its own personnel, must be "based on an Iraqi decision".

The collapse of the Bush administration's ambitious plan for a long-term US presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top US officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics. They continued to see the Maliki regime as a client which would cooperate with US aims even after it was clear that Maliki's agenda was sharply at odds with that of the United States.

They also refused to take seriously the opposition to such a presence even among the Shi'ite clerics who had tolerated it in order to obtain Shi'ite control over state power. Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ24Ak01.html

The leaked Oct. 13 draft can be viewed here: http://www.afsc.org/Iraq/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/69064

[Laworkerbee]

Since the election is less than 2 weeks away, and the Fox news restarted reporting the progress in Iraq, I think someone might be interested to know the current status of the Iraq-U.S. agreement:

Oh Jesus help me.

[DS73]

Since the election is less than 2 weeks away, and the Fox news restarted reporting the progress in Iraq, I think someone might be interested to know the current status of the Iraq-U.S. agreement:

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ24Ak01.html

The leaked Oct. 13 draft can be viewed here: http://www.afsc.org/Iraq/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/69064

"article" from chinese mass media: check.
"Leaked document" from Quakers site (furious pacifists ready to blow and burn military installations): check.
News: fail.

Next step would be the publishing of BP "contracts" from "green" blogs.:roll:

[LineDoggie]

"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."



Forgetting something?


All US Personnel in Iraq Are On Duty 24/7


NO US Personnel go outside bases Off Duty. this isnt Okinawa or K-Town with drunken G.I's wandering through Sadr City looking for a Bar and Tattoo

Sorry, this is Fail

[tea drinker]

If the Iraqi's felt they had more control of the US military, and this much vaunted ability to prosecute individuals for criminal matters they could come round to the idea of keeping the troops longer. Then again, it mightn't be a factor at all. Maybe it's just troops out mentality.

What happens on the run up to 2011?
Afghanistan gets a serious surge?

[Alpha-17]

What happens on the run up to 2011?
Afghanistan gets a serious surge?
Probably.

Anywho, that really doesn't make much since. That is the type of agreement we would have seen about two years ago, right after the '06 elections when everything seemed hopeless. Now, not so much. The Iraqis I met and talked to (my experience with them is limited; maybe I got a biased view) didn't really mind us being there; we were providing their security, and greatly boosting their economy. I can see a phased withdraw, but not one with the "artificial time table". :roll:

[Jmetal]

I am supposed to trust Gareth Porter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Porter) as an un-biased journalist? fail

[LineDoggie]

Gareth Porter actually defended Pol Pot's Policies?

What an A-hole, someone should smack upside his lefty loving head

[SoSo]

The Kurds should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want a US base in Erbil or not. Why should Moqtada al-Sadr have the right to choose for them? He's not a Kurd. If the Sadrists want our people out of Shia Basra and southern Iraq, we shouldn't maintain a garrison there. It would be counterproductive to stay if most of the people there resent our presence. But if the Kurds ask us to keep U.S. forces in their part of the country, that should be entirely up to them. They have good reason to be worried about what might happen if we withdrew our protection.
The peshmerga have been the best friends we have in Iraq. If we abandon the Kurds to the vengeance of their enemies, like we've done before to other peoples who counted on us, I'll feel ashamed to be an American.

[LaoSexMachine]

Damn Chicom robots!!

[seathru]

"article" from chinese mass media: check.
"Leaked document" from Quakers site (furious pacifists ready to blow and burn military installations): check.
News: fail.

Not every news or opinions from a Chinese or Hong Kong media is automatically false.

The English charter of the Quaker organization won the Nobel peace prize in 1947. The American charter is listed in the government website of California, among organizations such as American Jewish Committee and Amnesty International. http://www.sandiego.gov/human-relations/related.shtml


Forgetting something?


All US Personnel in Iraq Are On Duty 24/7



NO US Personnel go outside bases Off Duty. this isnt Okinawa or K-Town with drunken G.I's wandering through Sadr City looking for a Bar and Tattoo

Sorry, this is Fail

I do not think the U.S. is in a position to play the wording games currently. There are not that many bargaining chips left. The situation is totally different from the times when SOFAs were signed for Germany, Japan, NATO or South Korea.


I am supposed to trust Gareth Porter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Porter) as an un-biased journalist? fail

Gareth Porter actually defended Pol Pot's Policies?

What an A-hole, someone should smack upside his lefty loving head

Personal attack is easy but fallacious. What Porter wrote or who he defended before is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The key question here is: Did Porter misinterpret something here? Did he add or omitted something important deliberately to mislead us? Did he imply something that cannot be reasonably deduced from the draft itself? The answers to all these questions are no.


The Kurds should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want a US base in Erbil or not. Why should Moqtada al-Sadr have the right to choose for them? He's not a Kurd. If the Sadrists want our people out of Shia Basra and southern Iraq, we shouldn't maintain a garrison there. It would be counterproductive to stay if most of the people there resent our presence. But if the Kurds ask us to keep U.S. forces in their part of the country, that should be entirely up to them. They have good reason to be worried about what might happen if we withdrew our protection.
The peshmerga have been the best friends we have in Iraq. If we abandon the Kurds to the vengeance of their enemies, like we've done before to other peoples who counted on us, I'll feel ashamed to be an American.

My understanding is that the U.S. has no plan to curve up Iraq, yet. BTW, it's such a cute cat in your avatar :)


Damn Chicom robots!! To the clueless trolls swim among the fishes: if you have nothing to say, just shut up! Even a salmon can babble something better.

[LaoSexMachine]

To the clueless trolls swim among the fishes: if you have nothing to say, just shut up! Even a salmon can babble something better.


People living in stone houses shouldn't throw stones.

Chicom robot.


You mindless parrot, I did not really care what you wrote. But I noticed you were regurgitating what you heard from the news media without thinking.

[LineDoggie]

Seathru, think what you want. the fact remains that ALL US Personnel in Iraq are on Duty 24/7 and ONLY go Off Base while ON OFFICIAL duty. I would know, I've been there, You havent. And Gareth Porters CREDIBILITY is at Question.

[SoSo]

My understanding is that the U.S. has no plan to curve up Iraq, yet. BTW, it's such a cute cat in your avatar :)

She is my baby.:) I carry her around on my shoulder. She sleeps in my bed with me, and after I eat she jumps up onto the table and nibbles the crumbs out of my beard and mustache. She likes her human to stay well-groomed.

[BloodyTalon]

N
I do not think the U.S. is in a position to play the wording games currently. There are not that many bargaining chips left. The situation is totally different from the times when SOFAs were signed for Germany, Japan, NATO or South Korea.

rofl OH LAWD! Did I just witness a Chinatard question a BTDT?

[seathru]

/\
Wow! I want to carry her also! A word of caution though: I heard that it was not a good idea to feed cats (dogs also I guess) too much human food, because their physiology was different, and they could not handle the high salt content of the human food, for example. Try to feed her with cat food exclusively.

[11 Bravo]

Gareth Porter actually defended Pol Pot's Policies?

What an A-hole, someone should smack upside his lefty loving head

I second that with a lead pill to the temple.

[seathru]

rofl OH LAWD! Did I just witness a Chinatard question a BTDT?

No. You just witnessed your brain turned from jelly to water. The article was about next SOFA. The BTDT guy was talking about the current one, which was signed by Americans with impunity many moons ago, and will expire on 12/31/08, you brainless idiot.

[BloodyTalon]

No. You just witnessed your brain turned from jelly to water. The article was about next SOFA. The BTDT guy was talking about the current one, which was signed by Americans with impunity many moons ago, and will expire on 12/31/08, you brainless idiot.
Do you honestly expect all the insurgents in Iraq to magically disappear and get replaced by ***** bars within the two month period that the current SOFA has left according to Mr. I-<3-Pol-Pot? Iraq's gotten hella quiet compared to last year, but nevertheless the entire country still counts as a warzone. Ergo, no one that is part of or associated with the DoD, DoS, etc. is allowed outside of the bases off duty PERIOD.

So before you continue to have the audacity of sitting in the ivory tower (or should i say "ivoly towel") that is your parents basement and judge anyone who disagrees with your article and your opinion as being stupid, know that there are people on this forum like Linedoggie who have enough first hand experience to know if or if not an article is fermented bull crap.

[seathru]

Here is an update about the SOFA:


Iraq gov't wants all US troops gone by end of 2011

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer –

BAGHDAD – Iraq wants to eliminate any chance U.S. forces will stay here after 2011 under a proposed security pact and to expand Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops until then, a close ally of the prime minister said Thursday.

Those demands, which were presented to U.S. officials this week, could derail the deal — delivering a diplomatic blow to Washington in the final weeks of the Bush administration.
Failure to reach an agreement before year's end could force a suspension of American military operations, and U.S. commanders have been warning Iraqi officials that could endanger security improvements.

The current draft, hammered out in months of tortuous negotiations, would have U.S. soldiers leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011, unless the two governments agreed to an extension for training and supporting Iraqi security forces.

But Ali al-Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's inner circle, said the government wants that possibility excluded by language adding finality to the end of 2011 date.

"The Iraqi side wants to remove any mention of a possible extension of U.S. troops, fearing that the existing clause might be subject to misinterpretation or could bear different interpretation," he told The Associated Press.

Otherwise, he said the U.S. might demand an extension "depending on their evaluation" of the security situation and the state of readiness within Iraq's army and police. U.S. officials have privately suggested 2012 is too early for Iraqi forces to be truly ready to maintain order.

The draft also gives Iraqi courts limited jurisdiction over U.S. troops, allowing them to be prosecuted by Iraqis only if they are accused of major crimes committed off post and off duty.

Al-Adeeb said the Iraqis want to add a provision for a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee to decide whether U.S. soldiers accused of such crimes were really on authorized missions.

Planning Minister Ali Baban, a Sunni, added that the Iraqis want jurisdiction over all U.S. soldiers and contractors unless they are carrying out joint military operations approved by Iraqis — a subtle but significant change to the draft that U.S. authorities may find unacceptable.

Iraqi officials have said the changes must be made in the draft agreement before it can be approved by parliament in time for the Dec. 31 expiration of a U.N. Security Council mandate under which coalition troops operate in Iraq.

Without an agreement or a new U.N. mandate, the U.S. military would have to suspend all operations in Iraq after that.

"We are waiting for a response from the U.S. negotiators on how much they can accommodate," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told CNN. "I think both sides here have reached the moment of truth. The time window is closing, and a decision has to be made as soon as possible."

But the Bush administration's hope to secure the deal while in office was fading with the new Iraqi demands, despite White House assurances that an agreement was still possible.

Al-Maliki, meanwhile, met with a leading Shiite politician late Thursday to discuss the deal. Government television quoted the prime minister as describing the agreement as a framework for the pullout of U.S. forces and the regulation of "their activities within the rest of the time they're here."

"We don't call it a security pact but an agreement to withdraw the troops and organize their activities during the period of their presence in Iraq," al-Maliki was quoted as saying.
U.S. officials in Washington refused to discuss possible alternatives to securing a deal, saying they were still reviewing Iraq's proposed amendments that were received Wednesday.

But officials bristled at suggestions the negotiations could be reopened and said the U.S. was not yet considering asking the Security Council to extend the U.N. mandate.

"Once we have something to say on it, we will," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington. "But for the moment, we're just taking our time in reviewing it to make sure that we've got a good sense of what it is the Iraqis have put forward."

Privately, however, U.S. officials were growing pessimistic about chances for a deal. Failure to seal a deal with Iraqi politicians who owe their position to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion would be a huge embarrassment to President Bush, whose administration was largely defined by the war.

In Baghdad, U.S. military officials have urged the Iraqis to consider what could happen here if the U.S. suspended military operations, warning that the security gains won by the blood of American and Iraqi soldiers would be at risk.

Violence is down sharply after the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and the routing of Shiite militias in Baghdad and southern Iraq last spring.

But U.S. and other coalition forces also provide considerable help to Iraqi ministries in infrastructure and quality of life projects that would have to stop — along with control of the airspace and protection of Iraq's oil export facilities in the Persian Gulf.

"There's really no area that we as a coalition ... operate in that is not governed by legal authority," the U.S. military spokesman, Brig. Gen. David Perkins, told reporters.
He said the American military presence enables other international organizations, including the United Nations, and private groups to do their jobs.

"These things are all interrelated," Perkins said. "You pull one pillar out, you seriously degrade the efforts of others."
Despite the drop in violence, attacks are continuing daily.
On Thursday, a car bomb exploded near a market in north Baghdad, killing one person and wounding five, police said.

The blast occurred about a half hour after a roadside bomb went off near a police patrol at an intersection in the Fudhailiya area of east Baghdad, wounding six people, including three policemen, officials said.

All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information to media.



Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq;_ylt=A2KIKu_4UgpJankBXwGbOrgF

[Buffalo_soldier]

The Kurds should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want a US base in Erbil or not. Why should Moqtada al-Sadr have the right to choose for them? He's not a Kurd. If the Sadrists want our people out of Shia Basra and southern Iraq, we shouldn't maintain a garrison there. It would be counterproductive to stay if most of the people there resent our presence. But if the Kurds ask us to keep U.S. forces in their part of the country, that should be entirely up to them. They have good reason to be worried about what might happen if we withdrew our protection.
The peshmerga have been the best friends we have in Iraq. If we abandon the Kurds to the vengeance of their enemies, like we've done before to other peoples who counted on us, I'll feel ashamed to be an American.

Because supporting Iraqi sovereignty on one hand, and then dismissing it by dealing bilaterally with unrecognised ethnic groups claims to territory is a great way of soothing tension in Iraq.

In case you didn't realise, Iraq has a government and that its &quot;territorial integrity&quot; is something the US has tried to uphold. Dismissing it for political convenience is a recipe for disaster.

You do that and the kurds will be wanting their own state next. Then guess who that will piss off?

[SoSo]

Because supporting Iraqi sovereignty on one hand, and then dismissing it by dealing bilaterally with unrecognised ethnic groups claims to territory is a great way of soothing tension in Iraq.
In case you didn't realise, Iraq has a government and that its territorial integrity is something the US has tried to uphold. Dismissing it for political convenience is a recipe for disaster.
You do that and the kurds will be wanting their own state next. Then guess who that will piss off?

It's not a matter of political convenience, but of safeguarding the Kurds, who alone among Iraq's factions truly believe in a U.S. style, secular democracy. They have fought by our side from the beginning, and deserve our protection. Moqtada al-Sadr and others want to punish the Kurds, whom they despise as American collaborators, and have demanded a U.S. withdrawal from all of Iraq, even the Kurdish north, in order to have a free hand to do this.
Abandoning the Kurds won't help hold Iraq together, but will ensure its dissolution, because they will only remain a part of Iraq if they feel safe from all threats. Nothing but a continued American presence in Erbil will deter an attack against them. If we leave them to their fate, they will feel themselves entirely surrounded by hostile peoples:Turks, Iranian and Iraqi Shia Islamists, Syrians, and Iraqi Sunni Baathists. And I can promise you, their reaction will be to seize the Erbil oilfields and any Iraqi weaponry in their region, close their borders and unilaterally declare independence. This will plunge Iraq, and possibly the region, into war.
The weakling al-Maliki administration has mortgaged its ass to al-Sadr and the Iranians, a very unwise decision. They want to strip the Kurds of their autonomy and subordinate them to a strong central government in Baghdad, which the Sadrists hope will eveentually scrap Iraq's constitution and impose strict Sharia law on everyone. Of course, the Kurds will never accept this. Neither will the Sunni Sons of Iraq militia, who also mistrust al-Sadr. This entire withdrawal plan is a disaster waiting to happen.

[BloodyTalon]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/general-holds-doubts-on-iraq-deal/



General holds doubts on Iraq deal

EXCLUSIVE: SAMARRA, Iraq | In a blunt assessment, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, said Thursday that there is a 20 percent to 30 percent chance that the United States and Iraq won't reach a deal to allow U.S. troops to operate in Iraq past Dec. 31.

On a scale of one to 10, "I'm probably a seven or eight that something is going to be worked out," Gen. Odierno told The Washington Times during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division in Samarra, about 120 miles north of Baghdad. "I think it's important for the government of Iraq. I think it's important for security and stability here."

Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government, told The Times on Wednesday evening that he would be happy to host U.S. troops if the central government in Baghdad refuses to do so.

"The people of Kurdistan highly appreciate the sacrifices American forces have made for our freedom," Mr. Barzani said at a reception in Washington after meetings with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A draft U.S.-Iraq accord was reached earlier this month, but Iraqi officials faced domestic opposition after the details were leaked and asked Washington for amendments.

Several Iraqi officials and analysts have said that they doubt that the Iraqi parliament will approve a deal before the end of the year, when a U.N. mandate governing U.S. forces in Iraq expires.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday: "I do think it will be hard for Iraq to pass it."

Without a new mandate, all U.S. military activity in Iraq will have to cease or be in violation of international law. Troops could be confined to bases, and vital support operations for Iraqi forces -- training, transportation, communication, air control -- would end.

"We have to have a legal framework to stay here," said Gen. Odierno, who recently replaced Gen. David H. Petraeus as commander of the 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Gen. Odierno said he sent Iraqi government ministers last week a detailed outline of the operational consequences of failure to obtain a bilateral agreement or an extension of the U.N. mandate: U.S. military projects that employ thousands of Iraqis would shut down; training of Iraqi forces would stop as would joint operations; air traffic control over Iraq would cease; border security would be Iraq's sole concern; and communications and logistics support for Iraqi security forces would end.

"What they were provided was [PowerPoint slides] that showed this is the support we give that we might have to pull back," he said. "We provided that to all the leaders."

The draft accord calls for U.S. forces to leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and combat troops to exit by the end of 2011, unless requested to stay. Sticking points have included provisions for Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel and control over military operations.

Some factions in the coalition government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have asked for an ironclad deadline for U.S. withdrawal. Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has warned that an "elite" militia is being formed to fight U.S. troops.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most respected Shi'ite leader, insists that any agreement be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

In addition, Iraq's powerful neighbor Iran openly opposes an agreement.

"The bottom line is the government of Iran has their own issues here," Gen. Odierno said. "I think they do not want the government of the United States here in Iraq. They do not want a long-term relationship between Iraq and the United States. And ultimately, I think that's the issue here."

Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at the Congressional Research Service, said he doubts an agreement will be finalized, in part because of Iranian opposition. The Iraqi central government is dominated by Shi'ites who are close to Tehran.

"Iran was ambivalent about the U.S. presence" while U.S. forces were fighting Iraqi Sunni Muslims, Mr. Katzman said, adding that now that U.S. forces are working with the Sunnis, "they want us out."

Mr. Barzani said Wednesday that he still hoped a deal could be reached but suggested that Kurdistan could be a fallback.

He touted the relative stability of the Kurdish areas compared with the rest of the country.

"No American soldier has shed a drop of blood, not even in a traffic accident, in our region," he said. "Kurdistan will not be part of the problems of Iraq but part of the solution."

Whether the Kurds could invite U.S. forces to redeploy into their region without an overall agreement is legally questionable.

The Iraqi Embassy in Washington declined to comment on the issue. But Feisal Istrabadi, a former Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations, said the Iraqi Constitution states that foreign and defense policy are under the exclusive control of the central government.

Mr. Barzani "would love to have American troops, but legally he can't" unless Kurdistan secedes, said Mr. Istrabadi, who helped draft Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein constitution.

Richard Tomkins/The Washington Times CAUTIOUS: Gen. Raymond Odierno, shown talking with an Iraqi shopkeeper, says a deal to allow U.S. forces in Iraq past Dec. 31 is "important for security and stability."

U.S. officials have long had a close relationship with the Kurds, whose region has enjoyed autonomy since the 1991 Gulf War. Mr. Katzman said Iraqi Kurds have welcomed the idea of U.S. bases, but not previously in the context of a U.S. failure to reach an agreement with the central government in Baghdad.

"If the U.S. has no mandate to stay, redeploying to the north would not be a substitute," Mr. Katzman said. "You couldn't accomplish your security mission in the south from bases in the north."

Gen. Odierno said the capability of Iraqi forces has improved greatly, but they still "need logistics, they need aviation support, they need a little bit of fire" support. "They still need some training with our leaders as well, and partnering is the best way ahead for them."

"I think a bit longer -- a year, 18 months more -- of partnering with these units will make a whole lot of difference for them and a lot of them will be able to stand on their own."

@ James Philips: Maliki isn't exactly in Sadr's wallet anymore. Ever since the al Sadr decided to run to Iran, the Mahdi army has been up shyte creek without a paddle and, save for a complete collapse of the government, they're probably not heading back up

[SoSo]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/general-holds-doubts-on-iraq-deal/



@ James Philips: Maliki isn't exactly in Sadr's wallet anymore. Ever since the al Sadr decided to run to Iran, the Mahdi army has been up shyte creek without a paddle and, save for a complete collapse of the government, they're probably not heading back up

I hope that's true. Stripping the Kurds of their autonomy, and trying to dissolve the peshmerga, is one of two big mistakes I hope al-Maliki doesn't make. The other mistake would be to stop paying the Sunni Sons of Iraq, and to refuse to integrate them into the government security forces. Nouri al-Maliki has never impressed me very much. He had better remember that he is supposed to be the leader of all Iraqis, not just the Shia, or his country is going to fall apart.

[4X4Driver]

Because supporting Iraqi sovereignty on one hand, and then dismissing it by dealing bilaterally with unrecognised ethnic groups claims to territory is a great way of soothing tension in Iraq.

In case you didn't realise, Iraq has a government and that its &quot;territorial integrity&quot; is something the US has tried to uphold. Dismissing it for political convenience is a recipe for disaster.

You do that and the kurds will be wanting their own state next. Then guess who that will piss off?

QFT

In addition; If the kurds decides to act independently from the central Iraqi gov't, then they won't be able to use the " Iraqi sovrenty/territorial integrity being attack" rethoric/excuse every time the neighbors of them extends their operations on the terrorists they're harboring within their territories. It will be difficult to hide behind the central Iraqi gov't when at the same time they're actually acting pretty much independently from it.

[Love Cyprus]

QFT

In addition; If the kurds decides to act independently from the central Iraqi gov't, then they won't be able to use the " Iraqi sovrenty/territorial interity being attack" rethoric/excuse every time the neighbors of them extends their operations on the terrorists they're harboring within their territories. It will be difficult to hide behind the central Iraqi gov't when at the same time they're actually acting pretty much independently from it.


Exactly right. I think Kurds don't need to complain about their situation in Iraq as they have more advantages than other minorities in the area. It will be so funny acting miserable by benefitting from current chaos ambiance.

[deli_dumrul]

You do that and the kurds will be wanting their own state next. Then guess who that will piss off?

You have nothing to worry about: roflroflrofl

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/256-4.gif

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256