Pres. Obama should stick to his original Iraq withdrawal timetable of 2010

[bigtree]

. . . in anticipation of the almost certain success of the upcoming Iraqi referendum contained in the SOFA agreement which just passed the Iraqi parliament which will allow Iraqi citizens to vote on the withdrawal pact.

As part of political bargaining before the vote, the Baghdad government agreed to demands by Sunni parties to hold a referendum on the accord no later than July 30. Even if the accord is voted down, Baghdad would have to give Washington one year's notice, meaning that troops would be allowed to remain in the country only until the summer of 2010. (AFP, Nov. 27)

Given that the SOFA permits U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until 2011, and provide an opening for the U.S. to 'fight terrorism and al-Qaeda' and to 'train Iraqis,' a rejection of the pact by Iraqi voters would make our troop presence illegal since the U.N. 'authority' has expired.

If there is still some mission that Pres. Obama has in mind for our soldiers, I think he had better get on with it quickly because I can't imagine Iraqi citizens embracing an agreement which allows the regime in place to continue to advantage themselves of the weight of our military forces against whatever opposition they choose for three more years - especially the 'terror defense' notion which was promoted during the campaign.

Just as Sadr and Sistani were able to convince the Iraqi regime and the U.S. to include the referendum, he should be able to mobilize enough support against the pact to make the prospect of staying until 2011, as the SOFA allows, risky or untenable.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Couldn't President Obama make another treaty that supercedes *'s treaty

and 2010 is the new deadline, provided the Iraqi government also wants that date?

[bigtree]

2. yep, there's nothing in the pact that would prevent him from exercising our sovereignty

. . . and pull out even sooner.

[Lasher]

3. Sixteen months from January 20, 2009.

I'm counting on it.

[bigtree]

4. or sooner

There could be a big push-back by Iraqis against any prospect for leaving any significant amount of troops in place to 'fight al-Qaeda' as part of the Obama Iraq plan published gives voice to. There's a real possibility that the Iraqis could define their definition of 'combat troops' down far enough to make such plans untenable.


NYT: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/30/news/pact.php

The United States has also agreed to remove all combat forces from Iraqi cities and villages by the end of June, though the agreements remain silent on what constitutes "combat" troops and where exactly they will move. Those decisions have been left to a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee, a body of Americans and Iraqis that could prove to be as ungainly as its acronym, Jmocc.

The committee will have the authority to approve U.S. military operations, the use of bases and facilities, the detention of Iraqis by U.S. forces and even - in rare cases, it would seem - the prosecution of U.S. troops accused of "grave premeditated felonies" committed while off duty and off base. Any number of circumstances could strain cooperation and even lead to conflict.

"Question marks remain in the agreement concerning freedom of action for U.S. soldiers, vague security commitments and protection of Iraqi assets," Travis Sharp, a defense analyst at the Council for a Livable World, an advocacy group, wrote in a statement after Parliament voted . . .

[Lasher]

5. Iraqis are trying to retain flow of all money associated with US presence, without a US presence.

And Junior will agree with anything that supports perpetuation of Cheney's Iraq adventure during Obama's presidency. Neither desire is firmly based in reality, so it's not surprising to see some bizarre proposals.

I'm guessing Congress would have to apporve of any treaty that comes of this. Junior will bring it up at the last minute before the UN authorization expires, trying to pressure the gutless Congressional Democrats into full compliance.

[bigtree]

6. I'm guessing Congress will duck responsibility and let this ride without legislation

. . . and give full deference to Pres. Obama in deciding what course to take. It's not my preference that Congress is left out of the decision, but it may muddy any plan Obama has to withdrawal troops faster than the agreement or to take a different course on one or more of the proposals is he waits to see what they decide. He will be able to advantage himself of whatever 'authority' Bush used to deploy and keep our troops bogged down there to effect whatever troop movement he wants.