Baghdad insists on right to veto US operations

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: The Guardian

· Intensive talks on future status of American forces
· Two-year agreement planned, minister says

Iraq is insisting on the right to veto any US military operations throughout its territory under a "status of forces" agreement currently being negotiated between Baghdad and Washington, according to a senior member of the Iraqi government.

The agreement will last for a maximum of two years and can be terminated by either side with six months' notice, Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, told the Guardian yesterday.

His remarks come amid intensive closed-door negotiations between the Iraqi and US governments which have led to complaints in the US Congress as well as Iraq that the Bush administration is tying the next US president's hands by seeking to maintain long-term bases in Iraq for possible attacks on Iran and other neighbouring states.

But Shahristani insisted yesterday: "Neither the constitution nor our people will allow any violation of our sovereignty. Obviously foreign troops on Iraqi soil carrying out operations without the prior consent and approval of the elected government is a violation

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/18/iraq.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[annabanana]

1. Why da NOIVE!

Those ungrateful savages. Surely they don't expect to have, you know.. actual sovereignty do they?

[calimary]

3. Well, as bush himself would have to admit, they do have sovereignty, because they're

a sovereign nation now. Maybe what he really means is that they're a sovereign nation because they have HIM as a sovereign.

[jody]

2. Iraq has no reason to approve a status of forces agreement before a new president takes office. n/t

[Alcibiades]

4. They might

If, for example, the US will either turn an blind eye to, or give a helping hand to, the persecution of their domestic political opposition, i.e. "rival militias." The current Iraqi regime has no interest in the US forces leaving, because they are the main thing keeping them in power.

Or at least that's what I fear. Perhaps they will surprise us all and ask for an end to the occupation.

[jody]

5. Agree but the current Iraqi regime is a U.S. puppet despised by a significant number of Iraqis.

IMO Iraqis want an end to U.S. domination and a return of their sovereignty.

[Igel]

8. Depends.

On 1/1/09, under current agreements, US forces have to be out (IIRC--the precise date is less important than the fact that the current agreements all expire before inauguration day, 2009).

Now, if the Iraqis--or, at least, their "leaders"--had achieved a consensus that this was a good thing, they wouldn't be negotiating a SOFA. That they are negotiating it means that there's no consensus that the US should be entirely out by 1/1/09; it's consistent with, but doesn't show, that there's a consensus that the US should stay in some form.

Options are a SOFA or having the US/Iraqi seek and obtain an extension to the UN agreement under which the US currently operates. Any UN agreement would necessitate the same sorts of negotiations currently under way.

[jody]

9. IMO the Iraqi government is in the drivers seat knowing Bush desperately needs an agreement and is

willing to do almost anything as long as Iraq's oil can be diverted to oil companies that have funded Bush's campaigns.

[Fly by night]

6. So that's what a sovereign democracy sounds like. Wish we could get us some of that.

[skooooo]

7. Who do they think they are????

A sovereign nation?? Don't they realize they're just a colony now?

[Doctor_J]

10. Someone forward this to Harry Reid

He doesn't seem to think he can do anything about the WH directives.