US Crocker: Deal Won't Create Permanent US Bases In Iraq -AFP

[maddezmom]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP)--Any deal with Baghdad on the long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq will not establish permanent bases and will not tie the hands of the next U.S. president, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Tuesday. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said such a deal was needed to regulate U.S. operations beyond the end of this year, when the United Nations resolution governing their presence expires, and was viewed as essential by the Iraqi government.

"The agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and we anticipate that it will expressly forswear them," Crocker told the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee.

"The agreement will not specify troop levels and it will not tie the hands of the next administration.


Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/newsStory.aspx?cpath=20080408%5cACQDJON200804081108DOWJONESDJONLINE000533.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=US+Crocker%3a+Deal+Won

---

Secret plan for long US role in Iraq
April 9, 2008

A CONFIDENTIAL draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "Secret" and "Sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate.

It authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without a time limit.

The draft was obtained by The Guardian newspaper.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/secret-plan-for-long-us-role-in-iraq/2008/04/08/1207420388678.html?s_cid=rss_world

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Then why do they need a deal at all? It's a lie, those bases & our

occupation is permanent.

[Raster]

2. Give me a freakin' break!!! Not one thing that comes out of the mouths of ANYONE

associated with cheney*/bush* is trustable! Have we learned nothing? cheney*/bush* LIE, LIE LIE!

[dazzlerazzle]

3. bases in Iraq

We build them with taxpayer money, then probably lease them from the Iraqi government who will charge us rent.

[sutz12]

4. So we won't have permanent bases in Iraq

to make up for the WMD's that were in Iraq?

I think my head is going to explode.

:banghead:

[Javaman]

5. well you see, a 1000 year lease is far from permenant...

:banghead:

[cliss]

6. What's this about won't create?

It's my understanding we've already built them. It was 14 permanent bases, I believe.

There have been a few photos posted, here on the DU.
Any opinions on this?

[booley]

7. My opinion

He's full of shit and flat out lying and has no issue with doing so because what consequences will there be for him when the truth become obvious?

[sofa king]

8. Right, because the international shortage of concrete caused by base-building

in Iraq is only temporary.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/01/iraq-060111-voa01.htm