.Iraq Closeup: Security Deals and Timetables
BAGHDAD — Did he or didn’t he? Did the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, “refine” his position on timetables, to allow for some wiggle room by pledging to adjust his schedule for withdrawal of troops in accordance with the recommendations of commanders on the ground? He claims he has been saying that all along, but his Iraq policy as described on his Web site makes no mention of commanders, much less following their advice. But, then again, this all sounds so last week.
That’s because the idea of a well defined timetable has gained support from what might seem a surprising source: Iraq. And not just from a few fringe characters but just about everybody, from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on down. At this point, the only people still supporting an open-ended commitment are President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, and Tehran.
Tehran? That’s right. As has happened so often in recent years (driving the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest foes, from power), Mr. Bush finds himself pushing a policy that coincides with Iranian interests. From the start, Tehran has wanted to frustrate American goals in Iraq but not defeat them. So long as the United States is bogged down there, the clerics reason, it won’t have the desire, domestic political support and wherewithal to attack them.
How did we reach this point? The Iraqi about face on timetables came to light in news reports about talks between the U.S. and Iraq on security agreements. U.S. troops are currently operating under a United Nations mandate that will expire in December and needs to be replaced if the American military is to continue to operate legally inside the country. It quickly became clear that any deal was likely to be short-term, and unlikely to openly sanction the long-term presence of American forces. But details of that future agreement are under dispute. Here is a run-down of what we know so far:
The Elections Complicate Everything
Iraqi leaders fear that they could be punished in provincial elections planned for later this year if they agree to a deal that spells out a long-term presence for American forces. Some clerics have pushed the Iraqi government to reject any kind of deal with the Americans. It’s possible that any deal may have to be postponed until after the provincial elections.
Of course, the American elections have not made anything clearer, as the bickering about Senator Obama’s timetable underscored. There is some support for a short-term deal that could be renegotiated later, with the eventual winner of the presidential campaign.
Any Deal May Be a Short-Term Deal
The New York Times’s Alissa J. Rubin reported that American officials are no longer confident that a complete security agreement can be reached this year. Iraq’s foreign minister has raised the possibility that even if an agreement was reached, it would be a short-term pact.
Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Malaki, has also said that he favors a short-term deal over a longer four-year agreement.
Timetables and Troop Withdrawals
One commentator asks: “Why hasn’t the NY Times reported the Iraqi government’s demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops? The Washington Post, the LA Times reported it today. So did NPR and probably (obviously I can’t check them all) every major news source. But not the NYT. Doesn’t it think it worthy of its attention?”
Yes and no.
As The New York Times’s Campbell Robertson reported this week, Iraqi officials have continued to insist “that a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops must be included in any security agreement with the United States.”
But will such a timetable actually be implemented? The Bush administration has been unwavering in their opposition to any mandated troop withdrawals. It is unlikely they would ever agree to such a deal.
Military Operations and Suspects
The American military is now free to conduct operations and detain suspects, but the Iraqis want to be notified of operations ahead of time and authorize any arrests. It’s unknown how this dispute will be resolved. Allisa Rubin and Richard Oppel discussed the issue in their podcast.
Once concession that the Americans have agreed to is “to hand over to the Iraqis people captured by American soldiers and accused of crimes.” Despite the reputation the Americans earned at Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S.-run detention centers appear far safer than Iraq’s prisons.
Immunity for Private Security Contractors May Be Ending …
Another concession that it appears Americans are willing to make is to lift immunity for large private security contractors operating in Iraq. The New York Times’s Sabrina Tavernise reported that “the private security companies, like Blackwater Worldwide, have reputations of using excessive force in protecting diplomatic and other foreign clients.”
… But Immunity for the American Military Is Not
While Iraq has criticized American troops for killing civilians, there is almost unanimous agreement in the U.S. military that soldier only be tried by American military law.
Baghdad Bureau
Lots of great links in this story. Go there to see them all.
That’s because the idea of a well defined timetable has gained support from what might seem a surprising source: Iraq. And not just from a few fringe characters but just about everybody, from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on down. At this point, the only people still supporting an open-ended commitment are President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, and Tehran.
Tehran? That’s right. As has happened so often in recent years (driving the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest foes, from power), Mr. Bush finds himself pushing a policy that coincides with Iranian interests. From the start, Tehran has wanted to frustrate American goals in Iraq but not defeat them. So long as the United States is bogged down there, the clerics reason, it won’t have the desire, domestic political support and wherewithal to attack them.
How did we reach this point? The Iraqi about face on timetables came to light in news reports about talks between the U.S. and Iraq on security agreements. U.S. troops are currently operating under a United Nations mandate that will expire in December and needs to be replaced if the American military is to continue to operate legally inside the country. It quickly became clear that any deal was likely to be short-term, and unlikely to openly sanction the long-term presence of American forces. But details of that future agreement are under dispute. Here is a run-down of what we know so far:
The Elections Complicate Everything
Iraqi leaders fear that they could be punished in provincial elections planned for later this year if they agree to a deal that spells out a long-term presence for American forces. Some clerics have pushed the Iraqi government to reject any kind of deal with the Americans. It’s possible that any deal may have to be postponed until after the provincial elections.
Of course, the American elections have not made anything clearer, as the bickering about Senator Obama’s timetable underscored. There is some support for a short-term deal that could be renegotiated later, with the eventual winner of the presidential campaign.
Any Deal May Be a Short-Term Deal
The New York Times’s Alissa J. Rubin reported that American officials are no longer confident that a complete security agreement can be reached this year. Iraq’s foreign minister has raised the possibility that even if an agreement was reached, it would be a short-term pact.
Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Malaki, has also said that he favors a short-term deal over a longer four-year agreement.
Timetables and Troop Withdrawals
One commentator asks: “Why hasn’t the NY Times reported the Iraqi government’s demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops? The Washington Post, the LA Times reported it today. So did NPR and probably (obviously I can’t check them all) every major news source. But not the NYT. Doesn’t it think it worthy of its attention?”
Yes and no.
As The New York Times’s Campbell Robertson reported this week, Iraqi officials have continued to insist “that a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops must be included in any security agreement with the United States.”
But will such a timetable actually be implemented? The Bush administration has been unwavering in their opposition to any mandated troop withdrawals. It is unlikely they would ever agree to such a deal.
Military Operations and Suspects
The American military is now free to conduct operations and detain suspects, but the Iraqis want to be notified of operations ahead of time and authorize any arrests. It’s unknown how this dispute will be resolved. Allisa Rubin and Richard Oppel discussed the issue in their podcast.
Once concession that the Americans have agreed to is “to hand over to the Iraqis people captured by American soldiers and accused of crimes.” Despite the reputation the Americans earned at Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S.-run detention centers appear far safer than Iraq’s prisons.
Immunity for Private Security Contractors May Be Ending …
Another concession that it appears Americans are willing to make is to lift immunity for large private security contractors operating in Iraq. The New York Times’s Sabrina Tavernise reported that “the private security companies, like Blackwater Worldwide, have reputations of using excessive force in protecting diplomatic and other foreign clients.”
… But Immunity for the American Military Is Not
While Iraq has criticized American troops for killing civilians, there is almost unanimous agreement in the U.S. military that soldier only be tried by American military law.
Baghdad Bureau
Lots of great links in this story. Go there to see them all.
posted by madtom at 10:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home