You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer
2007-11-26
BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
Keep repeating 'quagmire' and click your ruby red slippers three times.
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations."

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty. In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008. He insisted that the U.N. remove all restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty.
Smart move. Gets the U.N. off their backs and allows Iraq to negotiate bilateral agreements to suit its needs. We'll be first in line.
Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said. U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.
Let's see how the Russians and Chinese handle this. In the past they've always voted 'yes' since they didn't want more instability in the region and we were doing all the heavy lifting -- they'd fight to the last American. Now Iran is getting closer to having a nuke and Iraq is getting itself somewhat together. Can the Iranians persuade the Russkers and Chinese to vote 'no' on the extension?
The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.
Since he's still the Iranian lap dog in the end.
Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

At the White House, Lute said the new agreement was not binding. "It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations." Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said.

The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters. "We believe, and Iraqis' national leaders believe, that a long-term relationship with the United States is in our mutual interest," Lute said.

From the Iraqi side, Lute said, having the U.S. as a "reliable, enduring partner with Iraq will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bets in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership with the United States."
Not to mention that it binds the next administration, Republican or Democrat, to supporting Iraq.
When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force. "Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth."

She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment."

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
That's been the goal all along, of course, but we needed the 'surge' and COIN strategy to make the place livable. The question is whether Iraqi security and police forces will make enough progress by the end of 2008 to allow this to work.
Haidar al-Abadi, a senior Dawa member of al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Alhurra television that the prime minister would write parliament in the next few days to tell lawmakers that his government would seek the renewal of the U.N. mandate for "one last time." Al-Abadi said the Iraqi government would make the renewal conditional on ending all U.N.-mandated restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.

The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues." Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests."

He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil."

One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners.
Posted by:Steve White

#16  "Prepositioning Of Material Configured in Unit Sets." The equipment and basic load for a unit would be in theater requiring only the soldiers to be flown in and issued the load. Otherwise it would take a lot of valuable time to move said equipment to port, loading, shipping [usually by sea], unloading and then then moving to the assembly area.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-26 23:49  

#15  What's POMCUS, OS?
Posted by: Grunter   2007-11-26 21:42  

#14  Pull all but a brigade from Europe. Leave a Stryker BDE near Graf for the sake of exercisee.

Move the whole kit and kaboodle to Iraq and CONUS. Grab all the old POMCUS sets (if any are left) and give them to the Iraqi Army, and get them trained up on how to use them.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-11-26 20:54  

#13  As I've long suggested, for a long time now, the US has planned the following:

1) A Status of Forces agreement with Iraq for several bases, much like what we had with Germany.

2) One of these bases to be the HQ of Africa Command, whose interests are not Iraq, but the ME, NE and E Africa, and some Central Asia, and the associated oceans: Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, western Indian Ocean. This would also be the heart of a network of other installations outside of Iraq, but in the region.

3) We continue to provide Iraq combat air forces, ADA, anti-missile defenses, and advise on the further development of the military and defense structure. In doing so we also provide a missile and air shield to Israel, and form the southern part of missile defenses for Europe.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-11-26 20:52  

#12  Balad AFB. Put an Army cantonment there as well - its already an air and logistics hub for all of Iraq. Set up patrol posts, like the old Border Camps in Germany for rotating patrols.

Pretty easy. and you cna sink 50K troops pretty easily and safely there.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-11-26 20:20  

#11  This is only news to people who have not been paying attention. We have been hardening structures in Iraq for a while now. We would need 50,000 or so merely to safeguard the noncombat personnel and equipment which has been brought over, and that assumes an orderly "retreat". Iraq is important in itself, but it is also a very valuable strategic location for pressuring Iran. There is a higher justification for a U.S. presence there than the tripwire force in South Korea and certainly more so than for the European bases.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-11-26 19:20  

#10  LH, I think the 50K figure was for all forces. Likely only 25 Army, no big.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-11-26 18:34  

#9  Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

No problem. To make it happen, just apply for and get your lobbying permit and make a sizable deposit to:

Hillary Presidential Campaign Fund
Obama Presidential Campaign Fund
Edwards Presidential Campaign Fund
with teasers for each presidential library
as well as
Nancy Pelosi For Congress and Harry Reid for Senate campaign funds

You'll be amazed how much they can turn on a dinar dime.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-26 17:36  

#8  I suspect there will be considerable opposition (including in the military) to a perm force of more than a brigade or so.

Oh, I hope so. Those are the ones who need to see the door.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-11-26 16:57  

#7  Of course they want us to stay. Just as the South Koreans and Germans want us to stay. Initially for defense, later to suck on Uncle Sam's wallet. It's the way of the world.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-11-26 16:51  

#6  50,000 is not that large a presence. We need to stay away from the nyumbers game and look at the capability to meet the requirement. Let the requirement dictate the number of troops. Then we can unass Kuwait.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2007-11-26 16:44  

#5  There are still 50,000 US troops in Germany for no good reason. Move them out.
Posted by: ed   2007-11-26 16:34  

#4  look at the patterns of spending by the us military over the last few years -- were in for the long haul.
Posted by: dan   2007-11-26 16:30  

#3  50,000 was the troop presence in Korea, IIRC. Not a bad level for hardship deployments.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-11-26 16:09  

#2  to clarify, I think even for those americans who are realistic enough to envision a long term presence at all, 50,000 is on the high side for the majority.

I suspect there will be considerable opposition (including in the military) to a perm force of more than a brigade or so.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-11-26 16:07  

#1  "50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
That's been the goal all along, of course, "

Oh really? I think 50,000 is probably a large commitment, long term, than most Americans envisage.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-11-26 16:05  

00:00