Proposed US-Iraq Security Agreement Rejected By Iraqi Lawmakers

[Frenchy]

Organizing the Iraqi government is a bit like herding cats, IMO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Huffington Post
June 13, 2008


Proposed US-Iraq Security Agreement Rejected By Iraqi Lawmakers

BAGHDAD — New U.S. proposals have failed to overcome Iraqi opposition to a proposed security pact, two lawmakers said Thursday, and a senior government official expressed doubt an agreement could be reached before the U.S. presidential election in November.

Iraqi reinforcements, meanwhile, arrived in the oil-producing southern city of Amarah on Thursday as the military geared up for another crackdown against Shiite militia fighters, officials said.

The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence here to the next administration.

U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of this country.

Iman al-Asadi, a Shiite member of the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, said the latest American version "wasn't satisfactory to say the least."

She said the American proposals contained "some good points but they were not up to what we had expected." Al-Asadi said the committee had recommended to the negotiators that they reject the latest draft, the fourth since the talks began last March.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed al-Asadi's comments, adding that "we will not sign" the agreement as proposed by Washington.

U.S. officials have refused to release details of the talks while they are still under way but have expressed their respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

The top State Department adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, told reporters this week that the two sides would meet a July target date to finish the agreement, which must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

President Bush told reporters this week in Germany that he was also confident that a deal would be reached.

But a senior Iraqi official told The Associated Press that the chance of finalizing an agreement before the U.S. presidential election was "slim," although he added that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government was interested in a deal if it served Iraqi interests.

The official is familiar with the negotiations but spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his position.

He said Iraqis were disappointed that the Americans were not offering a firm commitment to defend the country from foreign invasion _ a move that would require U.S. Senate ratification.

The Bush administration has said it does not need congressional approval for the agreement despite demands from Democrats that Congress have a role if the pact commits U.S. forces to remain in Iraq long-term.

Several Iraqi lawmakers said a major obstacle was the U.S. demand for immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American personnel, including both troops and civilian contractors.

Al-Asadi said the latest U.S. proposals limited immunity to American military personnel but that was not enough.

"What happens to our dignity? What happens to our sovereignty? We want immunity to be lifted," she said.

She also said the Americans had softened their demand for control of a considerable part of Iraq's airspace but that the Iraqis insisted on full control.

"If the U.S. controls the air, the ground and the sea, this means no sovereignty," she said.

Al-Asadi refused to release further details or talk about how many bases the United States wanted access to under the agreement. She said the Americans were now avoiding talk of numbers of bases but were asking for an "American presence" until Iraqi security forces were deemed ready to take over from U.S.-led forces.

She said the agreement included no timetable for drawing down American forces and "this is a scandal."

Meanwhile, al-Maliki met Thursday with Jordan's King Abdullah II during a one-day visit to Amman. The two leaders discussed resuming oil exports to Jordan and ways to prevent Islamic militants from joining the insurgency in Iraq.

Sunni Muslim Jordan has been critical of al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government, which Arabs accuse of leaning toward Iran. Jordan believes that hard-line Tehran leaders want to spread Shiite influence across the largely Sunni Arab world. Al-Maliki visited Iran last weekend.

The arrival of Iraqi reinforcements in the southern city of Amarah came after many militia chiefs fled there and to Iran to escape a security crackdown this past March in Basra, 100 miles to the south, according to U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

Quick reaction force troops from the Iraqi army's U.S.-trained 1st Division that had been sent to Basra arrived Thursday in Amarah, said Marine Lt. Col. Chris Charleville, deputy team leader with the unit's military transition team. He said they were awaiting orders from the Ministry of Defense.

A local security official in Amarah said new checkpoints also have been built on the roads south to Basra, north to Baghdad and east to a border crossing with Iran in preparation for an offensive. Amarah and surrounding Maysan province are believed to be the center of weapons smuggling from Iran to Shiite extremists in Iraq.

The security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information, said only lower-level militiamen were left in Amarah.

___

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub and Kim Gamel in Baghdad and Jamal Halaby in Amman contributed to this report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/p...y_n_106850.html

[AZXD]

Herding cats
I read the same story yesterday from the UK press, but can't locate it. It had stronger wording that suggested Iraq does not want to agree to our presence because they would most likely want our troops to leave much sooner than this agreement would dictate.

Here's a little more insight as to what the hold-up in negotiations entails.

Al-Maliki tells why U.S. talks stalled

Sovereignty is key to Iraq's demands

Alissa J. Rubin, New York Times
Saturday, June 14, 2008

(06-14) 04:00 PDT Baghdad -- Negotiations on a long-term security agreement with the United States are at a stalemate because of U.S. demands that compromise Iraq's sovereignty, the country's prime minister said Friday.

"The Iraqi demands are unacceptable to the Americans, and the American demands are unacceptable to the Iraqis, and the result is that we have reached an impasse," the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said during a meeting with journalists in Jordan. "The Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty."

It was the first time that al-Maliki had spoken publicly at any length about the agreement, which has been the subject recently of acrimonious and increasingly public debate.

Already, intense criticism from Iraqi politicians has forced the Americans to retreat on several important issues, including immunity from prosecution for U.S. contractors. Under the latest version of the pact, they could be subject to Iraqi law.

Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said that in his latest discussions "the Americans did agree to remove the special contractors, the security contractors from the immunization or the protection."

A member of the Iraqi parliament's legal committee, Iman al-Saadi, who has seen the latest draft, confirmed that contractors were no longer granted immunity.

The change is sure to prove controversial, since security contractors will be reluctant to continue to work in Iraq's dangerous environment if they might be subject to prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The negotiations are likely to continue despite al-Maliki's talk of an impasse, said Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"In negotiations about difficult issues, there are phases when people get frustrated," he said. "I wouldn't read too much into any particular statement at any one time. The two countries are committed to reaching an agreement."

The agreement is designed to provide a legal basis for U.S. security operations in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year. In addition to authority to establish more than 50 long-term bases, the Americans have been seeking to assure that their troops have the power to conduct operations and detain suspects without the approval of the Iraqi government and to act without fear of prosecution in the Iraqi justice system.

However, Saadi, the parliament member who has seen the latest draft, said the Americans had also watered down the demand for bases.

Al-Maliki is under pressure to show his independence from Washington and is enjoying a spike in popularity after successful military operations in Basra and Sadr City.

Iraqi politicians said his comments Friday appeared to represent an effort to stake out a bargaining position by signaling that Iraq was serious about its assertion of sovereignty.

Many of the concerns that al-Maliki mentioned Friday have also been voiced publicly in the past several weeks by prominent Shiite politicians, some from his own Dawa Party.

But this is the first time that the prime minister has raised those points and described some of his major differences with the White House.

Al-Maliki tells why U.S. talks stalled / Sovereignty is key to Iraq's demands

[AZXD]

Reading my own article ... I didn't know we were attempting to establish 50 U.S. bases in Iraq. I assume these would be permanent installations.

Having never been there ... It still seems like a lot of bases, if peace is established in the country.

Am I way off in my thinking, or do others think we would need that much permanent presence in Iraq ??

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Reading my own article ... I didn't know we were attempting to establish 50 U.S. bases in Iraq. I assume these would be permanent installations.

Having never been there ... It still seems like a lot of bases, if peace is established in the country.

Am I way off in my thinking, or do others think we would need that much permanent presence in Iraq ??

Empires need outposts!

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Empires need outposts!

Sure, but not in the quantity of Starbucks stores.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Sure, but not in the quantity of Starbucks stores.

Unless you are a contractor, of course!

[Powerman]

I wish I would get a memo on all the mission changes. I thought we were installing Democracy. Now it seems we are installing America.

[AZXD]

The memo is classified

I wonder how many people it takes to operate 50 bases ??

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by AZXD

I wonder how many people it takes to operate 50 bases ??

If the Defense Department is running it, 3 times as many as needed.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

If the Defense Department is running it, 3 times as many as needed.

I know my last base (NAF ATSUGI Japan) had 1200 personnel and was a joint taskforce base.
Rounded down ..... That's 50,000 to cover these bases.
Perhaps it requires less without planes ??