has yet to be finalized by both sides but... what happened to no time tables? contractors will lose immunity us forces will have to leave urban areas by mid 09 but can be asked to stay longer detainees will be handled by iraqis us forces will remain under us jurisdiction except in major cases such as murder. these cases will be reviewed by a joint commitee to decide who has jurisdiction. Deal would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/index.html BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have reached agreement on a proposal calling for a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by 2012, the head Iraqi negotiator said Friday. The deal still must be approved by both sides, said Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, deputy foreign minister and head of the Iraqi negotiating team. Hamoud said Thursday's meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was helpful in reaching the tentative agreement. Hamoud said the proposal also says the last date for the presence of U.S. troops in cities and towns will be June 30, 2009. There are clear caveats, however. If the Iraqi government sees the necessity of keeping the American forces in cities and towns or in Iraq past December 31, 2011, it would ask that the Americans stay. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground. Regarding the issue of troop immunity from Iraqi law and American authority over military operations, American authorities would have jurisdiction over their troops. Hamoud also said that in case of a major crime such as murder, the case would be reviewed by a U.S.-Iraqi joint committee. The proposal calls for the lifting of immunity for private contractors, who would be subject to Iraqi laws. As for detainee authority, any kind of detention must be ordered by a judge under Iraqi law. Detainees must be delivered to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their arrests by both Iraqi and American forces. This rule would go into effect January 1, when the U.N. mandate outlining the presence of U.S.-led coalition troops expires. In response to the Iraqi comments, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman on Friday said Rice has noted progress toward hammering out a pact, and the State Department repeated Friday that a deal has not been done. Senior U.S. government officials said the agreement is done at the negotiator level -- a low level -- and has been sent to both sides. It needs approval from parliament on the Iraq side and President Bush on the American side, those officials said. Hamoud said the deal has to be approved on the Iraqi side by some government agencies and ultimately the parliament, which is in recess until September 9. After Rice met Thursday with al-Maliki, she and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari briefed reporters. Zebari said both sides were "very close" to finalizing the agreement. Rice said that what had been formulated up to that point was a "very good agreement." She said that the "ultimate goal is to have Iraqi forces responsible for the security of Iraq" and that they agreed "some goals, some aspirational timetables" for troop withdrawals would be worth having. "What we're trying to do is to put together an agreement that protects our people, that respects Iraqi sovereignty, that allows us to lay the kind of foundation that we need for making certain that we complete the work that we've all sacrificed so greatly to see accomplished, and that work is being accomplished," she said.
Isn't this approach exactly what Obama has been advocating? Regardless, at this rate, neither candidate's Iraq policy will be relevant once the new president is sworn in.
Aspirational Timetables? Is McCain going to accuse the administration of defeat? I mean, a timetable is admitting defeat, right?
I posted elsewhere, but seems like a good time for a repost. <embed FlashVars='videoId=178638' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed> "What I won't accept is an artificial time table of withdrawl." -George W. Bush "Setting an artificial time table would send the wrong message." -George W. Bush "I believe that artificial time tables of withdrawl would be a mistake." -George W. Bush
Just in time for the US withdrawal! Civil War part 2! Whoopee! Get ready for the bloodshed to go way up. I guess the plan devised about a year ago was to pay off the various warring groups to stay home until after the US elections? [rquoter] Will Maliki "torpedo" the peace? [rquoter] "In restive Diyala Province, United States and Iraqi military officials say there were orders to arrest hundreds of members of what is known as the Awakening movement as part of large security operations by the Iraqi military. At least five senior members have been arrested there in recent weeks, leaders of the groups say. West of Baghdad, former insurgent leaders contend that the Iraqi military is going after 650 Awakening members, many of whom have fled the once-violent area they had kept safe. While the crackdown appears to be focused on a relatively small number of leaders whom the Iraqi government considers the most dangerous, there are influential voices to dismantle the American backed movement entirely. “The state cannot accept the Awakening,” said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Their days are numbered.” The government’s rising hostility toward the Awakening Councils amounts to a bet that its military, feeling increasingly strong, can provide security in former guerrilla strongholds without the support of these former Sunni fighters who once waged devastating attacks on United States and Iraqi targets." NY Times [/rquoter] Well, Jalaladeen, if "their days are numbered," then so are yours. In spite of McCain's baloney, it was the rallying of the Sunni Arabs to the common cause against the AQI fanatics that was principally responsible for the security improvement in the country. Men who once fought us and the Shia dominated government can return to fighting us if disappointed. The Iranian mediated settlement in Basra and elsewhere should not comfort anyone. It is merely a demonstration of Iranian strength among the Shia factions. "...a bet that its military, feeling increasingly strong, can provide security in former guerrilla strongholds without the support of these former Sunni fighters..." This would be a fool's wager. It shows the desperate desire of the Shia Arabs to rule over the Sunni Arabs as overlords. IMO, they lack the strength to pacify the Sunni Arabs without resorting to mass slaughter using modern weapons, aircraft, artillery, etc. These weapons would inflict casualties on Sunni civilians that would amount to genocide. If that happens the Islamic World will rally behind the Sunni Arabs in support of an insurgent campaign that will last for a long, long time. pl [/rquoter]
So now a majority of Americans and Iraqis, Obama, Bush and the Iraqi government agree a timetable is the way forward. McCain is the only one for keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely.
I'd be cool with one if they kept it secret or based on goals rather than time. Or base it on time and goals.
