Iraq Demands Troop Agreement Answers

By Cernig

The Iraqi government isn't going to allow the Bush administration to run out the clock on status of forces agreements or to punt the decision to the next administration.

Iraq expects a reply from the United States within days to its proposal for changes to a pact requiring U.S. troops to leave by the end of 2011, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Saturday.

"We expect by Tuesday or Wednesday next week to receive answers from the American side about the suggestions of amendments proposed by the Iraqi cabinet," Zebari told U.S.-funded al-Hurra Arabic language television.

"We are talking about a small space of time. It is not open ended, and every side is coming nearer to the moment of truth."

... Iraqi officials have said their proposed amendments would tighten the language demanding a pullout in three years, clarify circumstances under which U.S. troops could be tried in Iraqi courts, and ban U.S. attacks on Iraq's neighbors from its soil.

That last condition is clearly aimed at reducing tensions in both Syria and Iran. But senior Bush administration offcials have already said they're likley to refuse to consider the Iraqi's proposed amendments and have been ratcheting up the political blackmail as they try to force the Iraqi hand.

If the pact should fail, Baghdad has said it will seek an extension to the U.N. mandate. Washington has said that if the mandate expires without a deal it will halt all operations, including services it provides Iraq such as air traffic control.

U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said a failure in the pact negotiations could hurt Baghdad's efforts to attract investment now that the country was perceived as being safer.

"What business people are telling us is that they're watching that set of negotiations as they factor in the public policy component of their investment decision," Kimmitt said on the sidelines of a Baghdad investment conference.

An extension to the UN mandate is far from certain to pass the UNSC. Russia has apparently told Maliki that it won't veto such a move, but there's always the Chinese. This Iraqi move, however, will at least mean that the affair will play out on Bush's time and leave the problem obviously one that Bush owns, even if Obama ends up having to fix it.

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Comments

[Peter G.]

I'm afraid that the national leader most likely to be assassinated should the US troops stand down is the one most likely to blink. I don't think George gives a damn one way or another.

[smintheus]

Cernig, Did you happen to see this report by Gareth Porter in August? If the following is true, it puts Bush's attempts to blackmail Maliki in an interesting light:

>>Then there is the threat of immediate troop withdrawal if al-Maliki does not toe the line. [Colin] Kahl said he was told in Iraq that, in one of the regular videoconferences Bush holds with al-Maliki, he said, "If the negotiations crash and burn, I will be forced to pull out all U.S. troops by Jan. 1."<<

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43577

Thus Bush's threats have gotten less extreme over the last several months, after Maliki did not cave in to the obviously absurd threat of total withdrawal.

How much credence to give to this third-hand report via Kahl, however, I don't know.

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Smintheus,

I don't know Kahl at all, but I do know Gareth and i have a very high opinion of his abilities and integrity.

Regards, C