Deal Off

Looks like the permanent occupation plan may not go through as intended:

Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the U.S. must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place.

Leaving decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq up to the next president sounds like an awfully good idea to me. It'll let us, among other things, debate this issue in our presidential election. My understanding is that Barack Obama, like most Americans, and like most Iraqis, wants American troops to come home pretty soon. John McCain, by contrast, like George W. Bush, wants them to stay for 100 or 10,000 or whatever years irrespective of the cost and irrespective of Iraqi opinion. It seems like a disagreement worth airing.

Comments

This just indicates your poor liberal judgment. You just can't believe the Iraqis want the US to remain in their country. Contrary to your preconceived views on Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament is actually pro-American and can't wait to get its hands on an agreement to turn Iraq into the Middle East's South Korea.

Iraqi officials have raised a number of objections to the draft documents, both publicly and privately. And they are now suggesting that the latest proposal isn't even worth submitting to their parliament for approval.

Or maybe not.

Posted by Either Arnold Evans or Al | June 10, 2008 8:44 AM

What if the UN doesn't extend he mandate by December? At that point the American presence will be an illegal occupation.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 10, 2008 9:22 AM

Do you guys remember when George Bush had then Iraqi President Allawi fly over to the United States and had Bush' stump speech writer pound something out for Allawi to recite to US audiences during the 2004 US presidential campaign?

Did that really happen? It seems so far fetched now.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 10, 2008 9:25 AM

US: Iraq security pact can be finalized in July
Staff
AP News
Jun 10, 2008 07:05 EST
The State Department's top Iraq adviser says he believes a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement will be finalized by the end of July.

The pact would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States. It also would provide a legal basis for keeping American troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

The State Department's top Iraq adviser, David Satterfield, says he believes the agreement "can be achieved, and by the end of July deadline." He spoke to reporters in Baghdad.

There have been reports in Iraq and in Washington that talks over the agreement were stalled, and that it would not be finished before President Bush leaves office.

Source: AP News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We're going to ram this agreement down their throats and make them safer if we have to kill every one of the filthy bastards to do it.

Posted by steve duncan | June 10, 2008 9:34 AM

I get the feeling that the lack of resolution on the security agreement is the major factor holding up an attack on Iran. If Iran is attacked without some sort of agreement in place the dynamics within the Iraqi government and body politic will change dramatically, and in ways that are very hard to predict.

Posted by togolosh | June 10, 2008 9:51 AM

wants them to stay for 100 or 10,000 or whatever years irrespective of the cost and irrespective of Iraqi opinion

Well, that's an outright lie.

Not that I expect anything different from the left, who've been lying about Iraq from the very beginning.

Posted by Al | June 10, 2008 10:27 AM

Matt,

This is such a huge development it's hard to describe. If, as the AP report asserts, Iraqi opposition is what's holding this up, we may just be seeing one of the first signs that a serious and INDEPENDENT government is starting to take control of Iraq. This news, coupled with the very exciting news out of Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad shows that Maliki, the Iraqi government, and the other power-centers in the country are actually beginning to seriously contemplate and prepare for a post-occupation Iraq.

On this subject, I highly recommend 2 recent episodes of Charlie Rose with HR McMaster (one of the counter-insurgency gurus) and even more interesting the one with Richard Engel, NBC's Iraq correspondent. From Engel's description, it sounds like the various groups are starting to grab some local power in anticipation of a) the impossible-to-overstate-their-importance provincial elections and b) the end of the US occupation coming in the next 12-18 months. What's exciting is that in many ways, these developments are very natural and are happening in what are (for Iraq) pretty legitimate ways. The legitimate national government is cracking down on militias in the South in order to consolidate Shia leadership, the Sons of Iraq are dealing with the occupiers in order to gather power in the Sunni Arab regions, and the Kurds are basically building walls around their country.

On top of all that, it looks now like the Iraqi government is saying out loud that it doesn't want us to stay and occupy Iraq forever. THAT'S FANTASTIC!!!! We should take 'em up on it! Democrats have to engage these many positive developments, and articulate an exit strategy that's based on the massive gains of the last year and a half.

Wow. That was a significantly longer comment than I originally intended. Iraq -- it's a mess!

Posted by Sandy | June 10, 2008 10:35 AM

Sandy, there can never ever be any good developments in Iraq, b/c if there are, it makes Bush look good and we can't have that b/c we all hate Bush.

I just keep coming back to Samantha Power's supposed gaffe about Obama looking at the situation again if/when he's inaugerated. Hopefully he'll try to withdraw in a smart way.

In Tehren Maliki said the US can't use Iraqi bases to attack Iran. I think that's significant.

Posted by Peter K. | June 10, 2008 10:47 AM

In Tehren Maliki said the US can't use Iraqi bases to attack Iran. I think that's significant.

Posted by Peter K.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right, and the busboy at Sardi's tells the executive chef what's going to be on the menu that night.

Posted by steve duncan | June 10, 2008 11:21 AM

steve:

"Right, and the busboy at Sardi's tells the executive chef what's going to be on the menu that night."

Here's a link for the uninformed.

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors,” Mr. Maliki said, according to the Iranian state-run news agency, IRNA, which reported that he met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the second day of a three-day visit.

The Iraqi prime minister also held talks with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Vice President Parviz Davoudi, among other officials."

Maliki is a puppet and a Neville Chamberlain. Poor guy.

Posted by Peter K. | June 10, 2008 11:34 AM

What American policies does Matt think would be implicated by this agreement? The agreement with Iraq would allow the US greater latitude in its actions than it would have in the absence of the agreement, and US troops and contractors would have greater legal protection than they would in the absence of the agreement. But the US wouldn't be obligated to be in Iraq by the agreement. Matt may or may not know this, but it's clear he doesn't care about it. Rhetoric over reality.

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 11:35 AM

"Machiavelli's Shadow" doesn't portray Rove in a favorable light and Paul Alexander includes plenty of interviews with GOP notables unsatisfied with Rove's influence during the Bush administration.

"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administration as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."

"I think the legacy is that Karl Rove will be a name that'll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it," said long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins.

Courtesy TPM/Chicago Examiner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rove is known for a special form of jujitsu wherein he accuses opponents of improper conduct when it's that very behavior on his part that instigated the exchange. Various wingnuts and blog trolls have co-opted the strategy. Take for instance accusing those on the left of lying about Iraq. Typical Rovian inanity. As you can see many Republicans rue the day Karl was allowed in the tent. His protégés can keep at it though, it's always nice to see the opposition employ losing means attempting unattainable ends.

Posted by steve duncan | June 10, 2008 11:58 AM

"If Iran is attacked without some sort of agreement in place the dynamics within the Iraqi government and body politic will change dramatically, and in ways that are very hard to predict."

No, it's very easy to predict what will happen.

Sadr has already said he will support Iran. And that's basically all one needs to know.

But on top of that, both ISCI and Dawa were parties created in Iran. Not only that, but Dawa has now split into two parties due to irritation with Maliki.

So it's almost certain that both parties would support Iran.

The problem is the actual politicians in the Green Zone. Those boys, as I've said before, are in deep shit. If they piss off Iran, they're gone. If they piss off the US, they're gone.

As someone else here pointed out in an earlier thread, no doubt they have millions if not billions of US cash stashed in Swiss banks and a nice home in London to retire to. They're going to need it.

In other words, Maliki is in no position to say anything about whether the US will attack Iran from Iraqi soil. Not to mention that if the US does attack Iran from Iraqi soil, the Iranians will be hammering the Green Zone with missiles and his ass will be dead anyway - assuming some Iranian agent in the Green Zone hasn't already shot his ass and gotten some other Iranian agent in the Green Zone selected as the new leader.

If the US attacks Iran, most of the Shia militias in Iraq will attack the US troops in Iraq. The Sunnis will join in, seeing it as their best bet to kick out the US.

Add in thousands of Iranian agents who either already exist in southern Iraq or will exist five minutes after the US attacks Iran.

The result will be the complete cutoff of US military supplies - food, water, ammo and fuel. Within a few weeks the US will be forced to evacuate Iraq - under fire - leaving behind most of the billions in hardware we moved there.

On the bright side, this means we won't have to worry about taking a year or two to move all that stuff back home.

On the dark side, if Iran gets a break on bad weather to hobble our air support, as William Lind suggests, they could roll in four divisions and roll up the entire US force in Iraq (assuming the Iraqi army didn't join in on our side - and even if they did, they're likely to be worthless.)

As William Lind has said, there's no such thing as an "unbeatable" military - including the US. Militaries are "unbeatable" until they get beat.

Personally I don't think Iran would risk four divisions getting pounded and probably severely damaged by US air power just for a chance to nail the US forces in Iraq when it will be much cheaper for them to just aggravate the supply and insurgency situation and drive the US out that way. So I view that outcome as unlikely. But it's not impossible.

The only real question about the agreement is where Sistani stands. Apparently there is some disagreement about this. Maliki apparently was able to reassure Sistani in a recent meeting that the Iraqi government would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty. How Sistani could be that dumb as to believe that, I don't know. But if the agreement is signed as advertised, I don't think Sistani is going to go along with it.

And he can still put 100,000 Iraqis on the street in an hour - even more so than Sadr.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 10, 2008 7:08 PM