Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has just two short days remaining until the official “deadline” for requesting the US to keep troops in the nation beyond December, and it seems virtually a foregone conclusion that no decision will be made.
US officials have been pressing for a quick decision, so long as that decision is the one the Obama Administration wants, which would allow the eight year long war to continue for years to come. Several seemingly official rejections by top Iraqis, including Maliki himself, fell on deaf ears as US officials demanded that they “make a decision.”
Maliki seems more or less resigned to continuing the US occupation, but doing so will require him to tread some politically dangerous waters. Many parliamentary factions, particularly the Sadrist Trend, are determinedly against any continuation, and ideally the prime minister would like to avoid any vote at all.
This has been the source of the reports that the two sides are looking to keep “trainers but no troops” beyond December, as such a decision could theoretically come from the Interior and Defense Ministries without any vote.
The devil is in the details, however, and the US clearly would prefer to keep a large number of troops in Iraq, and is demanding blanket immunity from prosecution while they continue to operate in the country. This would almost certainly require a parliamentary approval, and an ugly debate.
In the end the Saturday deadline is entirely artificial, of course, and despite the months of US haranguing for a quick decision there is seemingly no effort toward ending the occupation, and the assumption, at least from the administration’s perspective, is that the Iraqis will eventually relent and give them everything they want, as they did in late 2008.
Try to imagine this. Iraq demands the "right" to station troops in America. And free from prosecution too.
"…the assumption, at least from the administration’s perspective, is that the Iraqis will eventually relent and give them everything they want, as they did in late 2008."
I hope not.
What about the referendum from the Iraqi people that they really DO want the US to stay there? Wasn't that part of the priginal deal, that allowed the US to stay from 2008 – 2011? Doesn't the US loudly and publicly demand in the name of democracy as as proof of the success of their war on Iraq, that such a referendum is held and will be loyally followed?
Or is it like this: You can take gold or silver to a bank box and trust the values to stay there. But you cannot take a bag of hot air, much less a written agreement from the US government, and stock it anywhere. Any word, any sentence, anything at all can be at whim redefined or subverted or ignored at any time. Only the whims and wills of the next moment exists to the true criminal mindset, or sociopathic political leader. So he signs a treaty today to win todays battle, and ignores it tomorrow for the battle of that day.
What a culture, you have developed in the land of the free and self-lauding!
Our desire to stay will prevail – and we will live to regret it. We went in because of the childish, willful foolishness of GW Bush and will stay because of the gutlessness of Obama. Why do we need to stay:
1. to provide a base of operations for our next actions against Lebanon, Iran and Syria
2. our professional military needs constant war for its morale boosting – without wars and occupations – budgets get cut, promotions get slim, hazardous duty bonuses go away.
3. too much effort has gone into turning Americans into Islam haters to be thrown away now.
We will stay because America has an appointment with ruin and we will keep that appointment.
TICK…Tick…tick… Two? days to go…??? No Sadr cave yet…??? HHHMMMMmmmm…. What to do…?? Didn't "O"want out to werk harder on "Afpak"…?? the nuclear fence sitter and No2 Welfare Queen..?? I wonder what our No.1 Welfare Queen is thinking….??? Doing..?? Git thoz troops out to do Iran…???
The deadline is 'artificial' in terms of what's really happening. It does mark a line at which there is no legal justification at all for having US troops inside another country. At first the US used a UN resolution as legal cover. When that expired, this agreement with the Iraqi government took its place as the legal justification for having an army in another country. When this expires, the US has no legal basis for having troops in Iraq.
If the US was still a country of laws and justice, someone could use this to force the withdrawal of the troops. But, don't hold your breath given the way the US congress and courts act these days. The checks and balances are gone.
Maybe, it's time you got the message: GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!
And, yes, I am yelling on purpose. I hope they can hear my caps all the way in Washington.
I wonder if Sadr is already sending notice out to his troops to clean their rifles and keep their ears open for The Word.
While I hate seeing anything degenerate into a kill-fest, I will not be in the least surprised if the US withdrawal from Iraq is conducted while under fire. Highway of Death, indeed- I wonder how many Iraqis have been itching for revenge for that sordid episode of American heroism.
I'm gonna wait till December 31st before I say anything more about the situation…….