Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEver since President Bush announced last fall that the United States would seek to negotiate a lasting security agreement with Iraq, the Democrats in Washington have insisted that any such accord would be a treaty and, therefore, ought to be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
But it's starting look more and more like the proposed treaty won't ever see the light of day. Why? Because the Iraqis themselves don't want it.
At an extraordinary hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday, members of the Iraqi parliament hand-delivered a letter to members of Congress that rejected the idea of a US-Iraq agreement unless the United States agrees to a specific timetable to get out of Iraq. The letter was signed by a majority of the 270-member parliament, reflecting a broad consensus among Iraqi factions. Said the letter:
"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq."
Without a US-Iraq accord, the presence of American troops in Iraq has no legal basis after December 31, 2008. Currently, the US forces in Iraq are there under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution that expires on that date. Both the United States and the UN have ruled out renewing that authority for another year.
If Washington and Baghdad fail to work out a treaty that legalizes the occupation, it is conceivable that the Bush administration, in its last few weeks, could go back to the UN, hat in hand, and beg Moscow and Beijing to authorize an extension of the UN authority. But that would be embarassing in the extreme, and both Russia and China would probably extract some major concessions in exchange for not using their veto. That would be seen as a diplomatic fiasco for the United States. Worst case: either Russia or China veto the extension, throwing the occupation of Iraq into legal limbo. In that case, the Iraqi government would have no choice but to demand an immediate and total withdrawal.
To avoid that scenario, it's entirely possible that the Bush Administration, sometime this summer, will force the hapless regime of Prime Minister Maliki to submit to a US diktat on a US-Iraq accord. Even though Maliki is under tremendous pressure from nearly all Iraqi factions not to accept a humiliating, US-imposed treaty, he might decide that he has no choice. But if Maliki signs the accord, and ignores the opposition from parliament, he would instantly lose whatever remaining credibility he has left as an Iraqi leader. That would plunge Iraq into a devastating political crisis. It would probably revive the Sunni-led resistance and inflame the Shia-led, anti-American forces grouped around Muqtada al-Sadr. Violence, and American casualties, would spike on the eve of the US election. Not a pleasant scenario.
If, on the other hand, Maliki submits the treaty -- whose content is still not known -- to the parliament, it's very likely that both Sunni and Shia nationalists and some pro-Iranian parties will overwhelmingly reject it. That will nullify the accord, forcing the United States back to the UN.
None of these scenarios are particularly appetizing for the White House.
Writing in The Independent, Patrick Cockburn provides a glimpse of what's in the draft of the treaty:
"Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government."
Cockburn suggests that at least some of the Iraqi defiance might be for show, and that in the end the Iraqis will sign the accord because they have little choice. But if they do, it could make Iraq's already violent and unstable politics far worse.
In the end, congressional Democrats might never get a chance to vote on a US-Iraq treaty. Which might be a good thing. Because while Iraq's parliament is overwhelmingly opposed to it, America's own pliant parliament -- namely, the US Congress -- will probably approve the damn thing.
RSS
Lest we forget, Iraq is not a US dependency, yet. the Iraqis call the shots in their own country, no matter how many of them we kill. It's called patriotism, inter al, this resistance to a military occupier. Good for the Iraqis.
Posted by sloper at 06/05/2008 @ 4:46pm
A TRAITOR ROOTING FOR THE ENEMY....CONGRATULATIONS
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/5/2008
Actually last I checked the Iraqis aren't our enemy you moron. We went to that country to liberate the Iraqis.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:28pm
Hmm. So the right is arguing that we are making headway and that the Iraqis are turning it around but we need to stay there for another 10 years to keep them safe. The Iraqis in vast majority want us the hell out. If we oppose them and force Maliki to sign a treaty then it will more than likely lead to an upgrade in violence and more political unrest as they try to eject Maliki, possibly by assassination, and install someone else into government, possibly Iranian friendly. Yeah things are looking great over there. Now your fellow Americans aren't only against occupation but the vast majority of the Iraqi governments wants us out too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:30pm
I wasn't talking about the Iraqi public you nitwit...Are you so fucking stupid you think our soldiers are shooting at the Iraqi public?????
So much for the superior intellect
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/5/2008
Umm you moron. Can you read?
"Lest we forget, Iraq is not a US dependency, yet. the Iraqis call the shots in their own country, no matter how many of them we kill. It's called patriotism, inter al, this resistance to a military occupier. Good for the Iraqis."
Posted by sloper at 06/5/2008
He is talking about the Iraqi government. Obviously you have a reading deficiency or something. He is talking about the people elected to govern.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 7:01pm
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/5/2008
Your ignorance and inability to understand blights your own vision to the point that you start arguing with people who to everyone else who looks are right. The Iraqi government which sloper is talking about is not our enemy they are the people are working with. Maybe people like you are the reason the Iraqis want us out because you seem to be unable to understand the difference between the Iraqis we have installed in government positions and helped to fight against the enemy which are the ones committing terrorist actions.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 7:04pm
Posted by libzRfreaks at 06/5/2008
I guess that is the response you give when you have been proven wrong and you have no asinine comment to come back with you so resort to insults instead of just admitting your error.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 7:39pm
Love to see how some of our right-wingers (not just insane babblers) respond to this...
"Those Iraqis don't know what's good for themselves?"
Have to...else explain why BUSH doesn't seem to understand the Iraqis.
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 8:29pm
This is slightly disconcerting, and frankly, I'm just a tad uncertain what to read into it; though some might dismiss this as convenient speculation, I don't think it's out of the question for at least some representatives to have operated under threat from particular militia groups, which would make the mandate substantially less clear. If this is true, though, I might have to change my mind about sustained US military presence in Iraq. That being said, however, to not maintain as close a presence as we can in the region would be insane, with Pakistan and its nuclear weapons right on Iraq's border.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/05/2008 @ 10:46pm
I guess Nichols must have got his journalistic credentials staying at a Holiday Inn Express. How else to explain how he posts within the space of about 2 paragraphs, the following contradictions of supposed fact.
"If, on the other hand, Maliki submits the treaty -- whose content is still not known
Writing in The Independent, Patrick Cockburn provides a glimpse of what's in the draft of the treaty:
"Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government."
So, which is it Nichols, the contents are not known, or they are known as suggested by Patrick Cockburn?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:13pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/5/2008 That being said, however, to not maintain as close a presence as we can in the region would be insane, with Pakistan and its nuclear weapons right on Iraq's border.
Uh, I think our presence in Afghanistan is sufficient.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/06/2008 @ 01:23am
Let's recap ... Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction nor was it involved when the overwhelmingly Saudi group attacked on 9/11 ...
And the latest congressional report tells us CheneyBush were aware of this & deceived US, in so many words.
Now let's apply CheneyBush reasoning ... having used some WMDs in our shock & awe invasion of Iraq for what we now know were trumped up reasons, the US has to be ... hmm, let's say sanctioned ... Iraq is too small & weak ... let's say the EU, for the sake of example ... so in c0mes the EU to sanction the illegal aggressor invader & user of WMDs etc ... Americans wouldn't take this too lightly, now would they ... looking for a way to legitimize its US stay, the EU offers US a treaty ...
"Under the terms of the new treaty, the EU would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in US. EU negotiators are also demanding immunity from US law for EU troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in the US without consulting the US government."
Acceptable treaty?
Posted by sloper at 06/06/2008 @ 02:36am
Ungrateful bastards! Don't they know what we did for them? Only several hundred thousand dead, ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods by the natives, 2 million displaced.
We should be kept around as liberators, musicians for the cakewalk.
--- Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008
heee heee, luvvy citing Cockburn as a source. From a lefty European rag at that. All in order to swipe at another lefty.
Which is it Luvy, we need to stay or we need to listen to the natives and get the hell out of their country? Wouldn't this be akin to "states rights"?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 08:22am
McBain, "straight shooter"
-McCain misrepresents Obama's stand on naming Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.-
-McCain claims he "supported every investigation" into the government's role regarding the hurricane, when in fact he twice voted against an independent commission.-
FACTCHECK.ORG
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 08:43am
"with Pakistan and its nuclear weapons right on Iraq's border."---Posted by Thrawn at 06/5/2008
Pakistan is on the Iraqi border?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/06/2008 @ 08:59am
So, which is it Nichols, the contents are not known, or they are known as suggested by Patrick Cockburn?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008
....or it could be that not all of the contents of the document are known...
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2008 @ 09:25am
Pakistan is on the Iraqi border?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/6/2008
Well, you know, the rethugs think that the oil in Iran is theirs, so I guess that entitles them to ownership of Iran. From that perspective, Pakistan and Iraq are neighbors, since they figure Iraq is ours also.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2008 @ 09:37am
Here's a bit of Iraq news for the terminally dull like LibZ to consider..... http://tinyurl.com/69z89z
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/6/2008
I can already here the neothugs reply. Ya, but it was a partisan senate report, ya, and, and, and, they didn't put in the report that Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq.
The fact that the investigation was to investigate what the White House knew or didn't know has little to do with Clinton or Kerry voting on the matter one way or the other. The people distorting the facts were Bush, Cheney,Rove, Rice, Rummy, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neooil bloodthirsty assholes including faux news and a few other media sources dominated by the right wing spin machine...not to mention a few right wing churches keeping their folks in line Sunday to Sunday.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2008 @ 09:44am
Note to lvliberty1 from the author: As long as you are going insult someone, you might insult the right person. The author of this blog is me, Robert Dreyfuss, not John Nichols.
As to the substance of your insult, the content of the US-Iraq treaty is not known and has not been revealed. That is a fact. What Cockburn reported is a "leak" of what might be in it, and how accurate his reporting is for readers to evaluate.
Posted by dreyfuss at 06/06/2008 @ 09:45am
Note to lvliberty1 from the author: As long as you are going insult someone, you might insult the right person. The author of this blog is me, Robert Dreyfuss, not John Nichols.
Posted by dreyfuss at 06/6/2008
I don't know how much of our rambling you read here, but Liverlips is short on listening to anyone else except his version of the bible of death. Anyone with differing opinions or viewpoints is considered to be a misled liberal, a communist, socialist, or a heretic or all of the above.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2008 @ 09:57am
Actually, WOLF, to LVLIB....
pretty much EVERYBODY one step to the Left of Tom Coburn is a "leftist"!
(And Tom might not even be pure enough for LL....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/06/2008 @ 10:11am
Actually, WOLF, to LVLIB....
pretty much EVERYBODY one step to the Left of Tom Coburn is a "leftist"!
(And Tom might not even be pure enough for LL....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/6/2008
Watch out Mask. Liverhead doesn't like it when it's pointed out that he makes Joe McCarthy look like a communist. You might just end up on his ignore list. ha ha ha.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2008 @ 10:39am
Well folks, here we go. Israel is going to stir up the pot with Iran and that god damned AIPAC is going to drag us into a war with Iran because Israel's friggin war hawks can't shut their faces.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24998146/
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2008 @ 11:04am
Milnea, maybe you could detail the connection between Rezko and Obama. It seems to have about as much weight to it as O being a Musselman.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 2:24pm
More from Cockburn
[The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.
...The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.]-- http://www.truthout.org/article/us-issues-threat-iraqs-50-billion-foreig n-reserve
Still a threat.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 2:45pm
So Iraq has all this money and WE'RE footing the bill for their reconstruction? Okay, who wants to storm the White House with me?
Posted by yutsano at 06/06/2008 @ 2:51pm
[Okay, who wants to storm the White House with me?
Posted by yutsano at 06/6/2008]
do you have the Havoc cloak and a giant wooden badger?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 2:59pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 06/6/2008 </i>
My apologies for my brief geographical incompetence, though I think that that Pakistan's proximity to the region is still a matter of concern, especially since the country between Pakistan and Iraq is...Iran.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/06/2008 @ 3:13pm
Hasn't Chimpy McFlightsuit left us a lovely f-ing mess?
Will he be like Poppy and retire to the links, or will he continue to make that ultimate sacrifice and just clear brush for recreation?
Does anyone think Carlyle would let him sit on it's board?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 3:55pm
Thanks for the reminder on that movie, masky. I originally watched it on a +-20' TV at my cottage. I think I need to re-rent it and watch it on the Monster LCD at home.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2008 @ 3:58pm
I notice a lack of our local right on this debate. I wonder why that is? Can they not spin the Iraqis wanting us out? Is there no argument against it? Have they finally run out of material?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/06/2008 @ 5:30pm
Even LV didn't actually argue AGAINST the fact that we should get out because they want us out. He only wanted to insult the author instead.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/06/2008 @ 5:31pm
Can't attack the message? Attack the messenger! It will be their tactic going against Obama and will be the tactic for any dissenting voices from the Iraq occupation line that excepts from things are going well and we need to stay. The actual answer is there are pockets where life is getting better but the sacrifices those folks have had to endure are extreme. The blood and upheaval of life will mark them for decades if not centuries. We will be endebted to them with currency we cannot redeem. This will be the Bush legacy.
Posted by yutsano at 06/06/2008 @ 7:56pm
If these idiots try to stay in Iraq, they might unify all Iraqis in one insurgency against the U.S.!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/06/2008 @ 8:45pm
<i>Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/6/2008 </i>
Hey, at least they'd be unified. Doesn't that count for something? :D
Also, just waiting for someone to say (and for the sake of intelligence praying they don't): "that scenario means our military gets beaten in Iraq, isn't that what the left has always wanted??"
For some reason, I also feel this compulsion to say: "man, V for Vendetta, just as fictional as the 'Bush went into Iraq for a vendetta' argument." 'Cause seriously...it's a pretty bad argument. Just sayin'.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/07/2008 @ 02:11am
Thrawn, it is one of the reasons, chimpy said so himself.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 08:47am
Posted by Thrawn
so now we're in Iraq to keep Pakistan in check. that's a new one.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/07/2008 @ 10:57am
I am not a parlor Liberal! While I can work with people, God help you if you mess up. I spent ten years in the service, and I had some good NCO's who taught me how to get in your face if you mess up. I will never put a flower in your hair! When some jerk talks about winning in Iraq, I know I'm either dealing with a propagandist or an idiot. While I have some values, I am also a realist. My oppostion to the Iraq war was, in part, based on the fact that is was not in the national interest of the United States. The Israelis have been fighting the Palestinians for, at least, sixty years. Did Iraq attack us? Were they a real threat to us? No! Do you want your children and Grandchildren to be fighting an unnecessary war for sixty years. Neither McCain, Clinton, nor Obama have a clue about the Middle East. Obama's stupid remark about a unified Jerusalem under Israel is having the effect of bringing Hamas and Fatah together because it killed the hope of a just peace with a new Democratic Administration. What do we care if it wins an election! I will get in anybody's face if they mess up. My work only began with the Bush administartion!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/07/2008 @ 1:05pm
P. J. Casey
the status of Jerusalem is a negotiation point.
no matter what a US pres candidate says, this will have to be worked out by Israel and the west bank palestinians.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/07/2008 @ 7:15pm
"Obama's stupid remark about a unified Jerusalem under Israel is having the effect of bringing Hamas and Fatah together because it killed the hope of a just peace with a new Democratic Administration."
Oy, he'll have to undo that one. It's a matter for Israelis & Palestinians to work out, as Emile says. But for Obama to play a useful role in securing peace there, he'll have to undo the damage of his very dumb remark.
Posted by sloper at 06/08/2008 @ 06:52am
sloper
he was describing the status quo.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 08:58am