Thursday, October 16, 2008

U.S. sort-of reaches deal on troops with Iraqi government

Anybody else notice the item today that U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was backing a draft agreement with the Iraqi government to allow U.S. forces to remain after the U.N. mandate ends at the end of year? The strange negotiations between the United States and the sort-of elected government in Iraq has apparently been rocky because, apparently, a lot of the citizenry are still opposed to the U.S. military presence there. The talks took months, and were finally resolved yesterday, according to the Reuters international news service, with a deal that would sort-of require U.S. forces to leave by 2011. The agreement also would sort-of subject U.S. soldiers who commit crimes to the Iraqi court system. Reuters said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters that the defense secretary was "comfortable with the document," and had begun lobbying members of the U.S. Congress to get support for the deal. On the surface, the agreement represents a change in policy by the Bush administration, which has long opposed setting a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. But the details of the pact reveal that the deadlines are merely advisory, because they are subject to conditions in Iraq. "These are not ad hoc, willy-nilly, arbitrary timelines," Morrell told reporters, according to Reuters. "These are goals that ... will only be followed if the conditions on the ground provide for it." The agreement to allow U.S. troops to be prosecuted applies only in exceptional circumstances, Reuters said. But if the Iraqi government does not believe it needs U.S. military support any longer, why does the Bush administration?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Of course we don't have a coherent policy in Iraq because we forgot to send enough troops to complete their mission and we forgot about other options to war. We forgot about Eisenhower saying he would not send American boys into the grasslands of southeast Asia to die. We forgot to consider the ramifications of posting an American flag prior to posting an Iraqi flag. Where was the support and commitment to rebuild the country? Rather than telling the Iraqis' what we will do for their country, we should now ask the Iraqis' what we can do for their country. A waste is a terrible thing to mind.
The allegiances currently formed between nations should become null and void when nuclear warfare is even mentioned. To limit the size of the nuclear nations club an international consensus should be reached whereby any country considering using even 1 single bomb should be retaliated upon by the rest of the club- this would cause non-nuclear nations to reconsider their quest for the big one. Would Iranian leaders really take such a chance in their Quest to meet Allahabad that they would risk annihilation? .
The environment is the biggest issue ever to confront mankind and yet we are consumed with silly silly child talk by our CURRENT 'leaders' who pass up opportunities to make real change.