The 300 US troops being sent to Iraq as “advisers” for the Iraqi military were by and large already in Iraq and set to go, but are holding off getting involved in the ongoing war until Iraq agrees to give them legal protection.
The US withdrawal from Iraq at the end of the last occupation came primarily because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was never able to get parliament to agree to give US troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.
The Pentagon says they expect the same immunity this time, though it isn’t clear if the extremely divided parliament is going to be any more willing to give it this time. The more likely event would be Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreeing to some sort of “emergency” provision.
It doesn’t appear as if that would actually be legal under Iraqi law, but it would likely be sufficient to give the Pentagon at least some claim to being above the law, particularly since Maliki, as the acting Interior Minister, also has total control of the nation’s police force.
Are they afraid of being prosecuted for giving bad advice?
Remember, the Great Liar says they are not 'ground troops'. The Great Liar also says that Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia.
This article is slightly misleading. Yes, Iraq's parliament refused to renew SOFA Iraq without a cancellation of immunity but President Obama made it abundantly clear at the time that he/we would not accept renewal with cancellation of immunity. If there is no agreement now from the parliament of Iraq on the status of the US "advisers", we will be legally at war with Iraq again if they are sent there, no matter what Maliki approves.
This was an obvious request. I was waiting for it. I bet the US wouldn't mind renegotiating and getting an agreement where the US can have a permanently enduring presence in Iraq with immunity. I guess it depends how desperate the Iraqi government is for US assistance. Then the US will have at least 2 of the 3 objectives (O.I.L). Israel wins regardless what happens as its foe enters a darker phase in its long running civil war. The US may be granted the logistics in Iraq that it has craved at least in the past, but how about the oil extraction in the midst of chaos?
So, on the one hand the US is telling Maliki that he has to go…and on the other hand, they're asking Maliki to grant them an exception to Iraqi laws in order to help him stay in power. Circular logic, seems to me.
This whole thing is more dimensions than 'circular'. Foreign policy by Kafka and Escher is more like it.
Once there was a CIA operative named Saddam Hussein who was paid to try to kill the previous ruler of Iraq. When he achieved power, the US supported him for decades as he was willing to start a horrible bloody nasty war with the Iran. In Iran, they had tried a democratic government but he CIA overthrew it and put in the Shah and his secret police. When they were overthrown by a popular rebellion, Iran became the Great Evil that must be constantly fought.
Meanwhile, Saddam got tricked into starting a war with the oil states when the war party desperately needed to avoid peace from breaking out. This made Saddam and enemy and eventually the US spent hundreds of billions of tax dollars and the lives of 4000+ Americans for 'regime change'. The US rejected the first post-Saddam leader, and instead insisted on Maliki, and then later insisted on Maliki again after he didn't do so well in elections.
Meanwhile, next on the PNAC target list was Syria. The CIA tried to support 'moderates', but they got clobbered by Al-Qaeda. So the US and the Saudis shifted their support to the Islamicists like ISIL. But now those same rebels have crossed an imaginary line in the desert. As they threaten Baghdad, the Iranian Republican Guard, whom the US sanctions, moves to Baghdad to take charge of the city's defense. The US decides to send troops and bombing missions in support of Maliki and the Iranian RG, while simultaneously insisting that Maliki must go because somehow its his fault that after the US and Saudis pour millions into arming the Sunni rebels they defeat the fake Iraqi Army that the US spend $20 billion defending.
In response to this, not only are we told that we must increase military aid to the Maliki government, but that we must simultaneously give more aid to the Sunni rebels in Syria while simultaneously bombing them.
The article says we are trusting to Maliki's control of Iraqi law for the safety of our troops, a control that contravenes Parliament. Yet we are trying to get rid of Maliki and replace him from the people who don't give us there protections. So if we are successful the first thing we will accomplish is to force ourselves back out.
What would I recommend President Obama today about Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc.?
a. Stop making new demands every week but accept Iran's proposal for the “nuclear issue” and get this thing over with.
b. Accept the emergence of a Kurdish state nestled against Turkey in Northern Iran. It may include Kirkuk. Leave it to the Kurds how they want to govern themselves.
c. Accept the emergence of a greater mostly Sunni Syria which will include Mosul (1) and its province but not Lebanon. Leave it to the people who live there who will govern them and how. Possibly support for the least obnoxious ruler(s).
d. Accept the emergence of a Shiite Iraq with Baghdad and Basra. Leave it to the people who live there who will govern them and how. Possibly support for the least obnoxious ruler(s).
e. Let these new states negotiate their borders among themselves.
f. Advocate a future “Levantine Common Market” including Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.
g. A red line? Yes. No incursions of ISIS/ISIL into areas of Iraq where Shiites are a clear-cut majority, especially Baghdad.
h. A second red line: no incursion into Syria or Iraq and no involvement with these emerging states by Turkey whose history of massacres not only of Armenians but of Kurds, Greeks, and Christians is so vile that this state almost deserves to be blacklisted forever by the UN.
i. Return of refugees to their homes. Assistance to begin a new life.
(1) Mosul was in French-Syria of the Sykes-Picot pact. In 1918 Clemenceau wanted to give it to Great Britain but the remainder of the French government and French business organizations protested and the fate of Mosul was left undecided until 1926 when the League of Nations “gave” it to the British mandate of Iraq. In 1927 at the Lausanne Conference Mosul was claimed by Turkey on the grounds that Kurds were actually Turkish!
So that's what they mean by "exceptional"? American soldiers get to be exempt from their crimes. The oh so superpowerful won't do anything unless they are treated as the exception.
If the US were truly exceptional, they wouldn't need exemption. They are just thugs trying to cover their ass.
Another fine article of hyperbole and conjecture.