The Pentagon denied reports Saturday that the US abandoned plans to keep several thousand troops in Iraq after a year-end deadline, saying talks with Baghdad were still underway.
In a statement to reporters, Pentagon press secretary George Little denied the news reports: “Suggestions that a final decision has been reached about our training relationship with the Iraqi government are wrong. Those discussions are ongoing,” Little said.
The US is still itching to keep about 5,000 additional troops past the deadline in December. The Maliki government – circumventing Parliament – initially agreed to the deal, but talks reached an impasse over granting the additional troops be immunity from Iraqi law. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh last week suggested that Iraq was prepared to bow out of the deal, and instead rely on private contractors for “training” programs in 2012 and beyond.
A senior Obama administration official in Washington anonymously confirmed to The Associated Press on Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy.
But whether a few thousand or a few hundred, the decrease in the number of troops from the current 41,000 seems unlikely to change Iraq’s new client state status. An effective occupation is not even being negotiated upon.
As was reported here in September, the reduced level of troops is possible in tandem with the expanded diplomatic mission because the US has been largely successful in its intentions in Iraq, setting in place the intended political, military, and economic elements for Iraq to become a long-term client state instead of a warfront.
As the New York Times reported last month, the debate over specific numbers and figures is to some extent unimportant: “The administration has already drawn up plans for an extensive expansion of the American Embassy and its operations, bolstered by thousands of paramilitary security contractors.”
Iraq may rival long-time client, Egypt. “An Office of Security Cooperation,” reported the Times, ”like similar ones in countries like Egypt, would be staffed by civilians and military personnel overseeing the training and equipping of Iraq’s security forces” for an indefinite period.
The State Department is expected to have up to 17,000 employees and at least 5,000 military contractors for this ongoing diplomatic presence, which has been described as necessary to provide “situational awareness around the country, manage political crises in potential hotspots such as Kirkuk, and provide a platform for delivering economic, development and security assistance.”
In short, many Iraqis may see much continuity in the relationship with the US. According to the most recent Quarterly Report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq, the Department of State “will assume primary responsibility for a planned $6.8 billion operation” carried out “from 11 locations around Iraq, including three consulates and the world’s largest embassy.” Responsibilities also include carrying out “two of the largest Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programs in the world and to spend the $2.55 billion in Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF).”
As detailed in a declassified, partially redacted State Department document, a “fleet of 46 aircraft” will be “based and maintained in Baghdad, Basra, and Erbil” and will include 20 medium lift S-61 helicopters, 18 light lift UH-1N helicopters, three light observation MD-530 helicopters, and five Dash 8 fixed wing aircraft. Flight and landing zones, maintenance hangars, operation buildings, and air traffic control towers, along with maintenance and refueling will all be a part of the contracted construction operations.
Agreements will be negotiated with Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan to secure authorization for continuous Embassy flight plans between the three countries, which all contain a massive presence of US military, diplomatic, and contractor personnel.
The State Department’s $3.7 billion request for Iraq in FY 2012 includes funding for integrated programs of economic management. The United States Agency for International Development, alongside the United States Department of Agriculture, will continue to oversee sectors of Iraq’s economy, especially its natural resources, as agreed upon in the secretive Strategic Framework Agreement.
The ongoing negotiations are probably tense on both sides of the isle, which is perhaps what led to the confusion. But it does not appear to have affected the many other aspects of US-Iraqi politics going forward. Almost a decade of war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, millions displaced, and terrible crimes by the United States will continue to go unaccounted for and be the structure of American dominance in the country and the region.
You guys can never be satisfied can you? This is huge. Thanks be to Sadr's bloc and the Iraqis for sticking to their guns. As for Iraq being a "client state", this is a gross exaggeration. Egypt was once considered a client state of the USSR, until they weren't. They just stopped receiving military equipment. Egypt is far from being a client state of the US's as well.
The same is true for Iraq, the US does not have that much influence over Iraq (look at Iraqi statements and actions vis a vis Syria, and Iran), and will have even less once its troops are removed. The State Department will only be able to do much, but Iran will exert more influence over Iraq.
Rejoice, perhaps for only the second time since WWII, US troops are forcibly leaving an occupied country.
Arabs do NOT like Persians and not all Shiites(particularly Shiites outside of Persia) "respect" the Waliyat Al Fiqh.Iranian influence in Iraq has always legitimately been exaggerated both by the Baathists and the United States for PR purposes.The Iraqi statements on Syria and Iran do NOT reflect a "friendship" or "love" for the Iranian government,their American masters wouldn't allow it.Simply skim the wikileaks documents for all the times the IRGC tried to assassinate Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament along with all his (secret)personal statements and actions towards them.
Also could you attempt to explain the Charge of the Knights and the Southern province operations if Iraq was so darn
pro-Iranian"?
Not to rain on your parade but the whole "all shia/maliki loves Iran" meme has always been such fluff.
I'm sure they'll take these guys out. They have to have someone for Uganda.
The ultra complexity in state of the art darkness, the illusion of good used to enrich yourself upon the misery of people kept in a state of terror.
So, to get a clear picture of the mind prison going down in Iraq one should read a best seller that was published in the 1970’s called “Up the Down Staircase.” For it centered on the fact that in any organization people advance to their “highest level of incompetence,” a level where they start to supervise people more intelligent then they, whereupon they level off and enter career stagnation.
And so, our Empire has had ten years to select people most corrupt, and to assign them a position of power that most perfectly matches their “highest level of incompetence.”
With Iran next door and having almost 90percent say in Iraq it will be a long hard slog and within 5yrs at the most the yankee murderers will have to hightail it out of there leaving all that american taxpayers behind plus borrowed money from China. "GOD BLESS AMERICA" and down she goes.
Okay seriously,the Iraqi people DO NOT like Iran.Shia are not naturally predisposed to like Iran in the exact same way that not all African Americans are predisposed to enjoy shamanism.The threat of Iraq falling into diabolical Iranian influence has always been American and Baathist bullshit scaremongering.It's simply not true.