Doug, we’re on parallel paths on much of this. Wait a minute whilst I give a rare “wha hoooo!” :0)

We do, however, part company with your speculation on Bush motivation. I don’t see this as a reason, but for the heck of it… I’ll play.

This is a President who endures low poll numbers, personal insults, utter disrepect, and media arrows daily. This is a man who does this because he believes his choice to relieve Saddam of power and help Iraq transform into an Arab democracy was crucial to this nation’s security now, and in the future. If he did not believe those things, he would have acquiesced to public polls long ago.

I suggest that your personal venom for Bush clouds your judgment of the man. You certainly can’t cast yourself as the end all-be all, de facto spokesperson for defining Bush’s innermost thoughts and motivation. And my guess is he can reiterate that this is not about him, but about a secure Iraq ally, and about this nation’s security… but you’ll refuse to believe him anyway.

Yes, a byproduct of achieving workable base agreements that do not tie the hands of the new POTUS (which is something he has stated he will do), is that he will have some sort of goal post met before leaving office. But you assume the byproduct drives the man, and not the expedient facts.

So lets leave the speculation and emotions behind and look at some unarguable truths. The base agreements are driven by three driving factors:

1: expiration of the UN mandate by Dec of this year

2: desire by Iraqis to have US base presence for some temporary duration (with acceptable terms to both sides)

3: Pentagon desire not to see the military and security advances made to date go down the drain by leaving Iraq improperly, or ill-timed

Don’t forget that whomever occupies the Oval Office next year, the Pentagon and military are still charged with the same tasks and goals in Iraq. How easy it is for them to achieve them will depend on who the POTUS is, their own agenda, and their ensuing commands as CIC. They have vested interest in cementing Bush’s “legacy”.

They do have every desire to protect the men and women under their command, safe guard their current advances, and ultimately achieve their Iraq goals… no matter who wins in Nov. It is from this stand the negotiations take place… not for your supposed political games.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MataHarley,

I have no issue with you here. You’re open to redeployment/withdrawal if the Iraqi’s want us “out” and they interpret our presence as an occupation and a run on their sovereignty; we agree here.

If these talks completely collapse (which is hard to imagine) and no new agreement is reached to replace the expiring U.N. mandate covering the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States might have to withdraw. Most likely there will be a all-parties-unhappy compromise, but even here one finds GOP failure. Let me explain.

The gist of all this political hustle that’s fascinating to me comes in two parts: one, it is to ensure Bush’s legacy; and two, it may really damage McCain’s campaign.

For Bush, Iraq will define his legacy by how well the seed of democracy germinates there (as there’s nothing else to define it). As we are now arriving at the summum bonum in Iraq, that event of great importance, we are looking at our future presence, influence and interests in the country and the region –hence, this issue is crucial to Bush: If Bush cannot get what he wants from these talks, in essence, he will have been “thrown out of Iraq.” (Of course, much of this may come down to the degree of what he gets or doesn’t, but still damage is done –based on the current set of failure in negotiations and where they are going.)

For McCain, whether the negotiations end in total failure or they produce an unsatisfactory-each-sides compromise, McCain also could find himself in great political trouble.

Winning the Iraq “war” and continuing Bush’s ME policy are the paramount issues of McCain’s presidential bid. But what if there is no war to win because the Iraqis either tell the US to go home, or won’t allow us to conduct significant operations within Iraq, or from Iraq (here they have already said they will not permit it) or, as you and I discussed, keeping troops kept in Iraq in militarily compromising duties? What if the Iraqis signal that maintaining a high level of U.S. troops in Iraq is not that important to them? These questions and more are what many are now asking in political contexts. How could McCain continue to attack Barack Obama as a defeatist, a surrenderer, a cut-and-runner who would imperil the United States by yanking troops out of Iraq, when the Iraq’s are declaring they want them to leave? Obama would be viewed as having grasped the situation accurately.

McBush would lose almost all his aces in the campaign to Obama!

The main point is that McCain’s pro-occupation stance–as much as it is out of sync with popular opinion–could even further be undermined by Iraq itself if the government that he claims needs major U.S. military assistance says it would prefer to do without it– by degree or categorically, it doesn’t matter which one, either one would still be damaging. (More on this in another post.)

Therefore, as I see it, McCain’s presidential campaign, and Bush’s legacy, is now being held hostage by Iraqi leaders opposed to the US occupation!

As the future of Iraq lays in the balance of the security agreement, so also does Bush and McCain’s futures.

This, in my opinion, explains the heavy-handedness by the US negotiators, and why as I read conservative commentary on the ME there is next to nothing on this subject; however, us liberals are pecking away tomes on this potential eviction notice (whether in degree or kind).

Let’s be frank here, this agreement is crucial to Bush and McCain, and if they don’t come out looking good and smelling like roses on this, it’s great foreign policy ammo for Obama. This explains the silence from the ME hawks on the agreement —they’re clinching their teeth with bated breath.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

He says the initial framework agreed upon was to have been an
accord “between two completely sovereign states.”

But he says the U.S. proposals “do not take into consideration
Iraq’s sovereignty.”

How timely the SCOTUS decision. As I mentioned in my post on the path to the Supreme’s decision, the concurring justices are using the agreement between Cuba and the US for their reasoning as to why the basics of the Constitution applies to Gitmo detainees.

The truth of that is Cuba retains full sovereignty of the base, however the US was granted full authority and control over the area and everyone in it.

I don’t expect Maliki to understand the US judicial system… hang it’s confusing enuf to us here… sovereignty vs authority/power. What Maliki and other Iraqis seek is both sovereignty PLUS authority over our military. No way, Jose….

You can post minute to minute updates on the talks, Doug. It will not change my opinion, nor drive me to believe the US is asking for something outrageous. If the Iraqis want our base presence… and they do… then they can take our aid on *our* terms. It’s our military’s butts on the line.

I do not want US soldiers and support personnel subject to Iraq courts or even the slightest hint of Sharia court decisions. I do not want the Iraqis dictating what we can do on those bases, if and when we can move equipment etal.

And because of Gitmo, you now know that a base in a host country can be entirely US authority and control, subject to only US laws.

And that agreement was not created by the evil George W. Bush, but was signed by President Teddy Roosevelt.

Iraqis have options.

1: If we cannot come to an agreement, and they can renew the UN mandate so the next POTUS can battle it out with them

2: If no agreement, they don’t have to renew the UN mandate, and we’ll come home. It would be their choice to take it upon themselves to survive. And this POTUS has always said that if the Iraqi govt asks us to leave, we’d leave.

3: Or they can compromise on the agreement.

But there is only so much compromise on our side that I personally support. So I’m waaaaay okay if they refuse, don’t renew, and we just come home.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

(AP) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says talks with the United States on a longterm security agreement have reached a “dead end.”

Al-Maliki says the talks slumped because each side refused the
other’s demands.

He says the initial framework agreed upon was to have been an
accord “between two completely sovereign states.”

But he says the U.S. proposals “do not take into consideration
Iraq’s sovereignty.”

The prime minister said Friday “this is not acceptable.” The
American demands “violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we
reached a dead end.”

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating behind closed doors
a deal that would give U.S. troops legal grounds for an extended
stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.

–Poetic Justice

Like or Dislike: 0  0

… “and what comes next” are:

(AP) New U.S. proposals have failed to overcome Iraqi opposition to a proposed security pact, two lawmakers said Thursday, and a senior government official expressed doubt an agreement could be reached before the U.S. presidential election in November.
…
U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of this country.

The new proposals appear to be to reduce the 58 military bases to the ‘low dozens’ and willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors according to information leaked to The Independent.

Dr. Irak, but he tells us the opposition to the agreement has redraw political camps:

According to a Sadrist lawmaker a new coalition is being formed called “The Patriotic Parliamentary Assembly.” The coalition would include Sadrists, Fadhila, Allawi’s “Iraqi List,’ Khalaf al-Layyan’s “National Dialogue Council,” the “Arab Bloc,” and Jaafari’s “National Reform Current” (which he formed this spring after a Dawa leadership struggle with Maliki). As such, it would represent an interesting mix of Shia and Sunni (both religious and secular) parties that are united by their opposition to a long-term U.S.-Iraqi pact.

In essence, it’s a new alignment of nationalists vs decentralists. Just a year ago the Sunni’s would never, ever had joined up with the Sadr’s bloc. That’s just how much evidence there is that the occupation has so soured Iraqis that enemies have joined against the security agreement.

(LAT) In addition, Ned Parker tells us:

Officials in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s ruling coalition are questioning whether Iraq needs a U.S. military presence even as the two countries press forward with high-pressure negotiations to determine how long American forces will remain.

Some officials in Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party and his larger Shiite United Iraqi Alliance bloc, which has cooperated with the U.S., have spoken in favor of imposing severe restrictions on U.S. forces after the United Nations mandate authorizing their presence expires at the end of the year.

Finally, Greg Bruno, on the Council of Foreign Relations, tells us:

Five years since the fall of Saddam Hussein, factions in Iraq’s parliament continue to squabble over oil, borders (UPI), and ballots (CNN). But on at least one important matter — security deals between Washington and Baghdad — Iraqis are increasingly in agreement. Opposition to the pacts is growing across Iraq’s sectarian divide, as Sunni lawmakers, Shiite clerics, and some militia leaders have come out against U.S. proposals. Issues separating the sides include what role the United States should play in defending Iraq; its efforts to confront terrorist groups; and legal protections for U.S. troops and contractors.

The US and Iraq, obviously, are at loggerheads on the agreement. We want to perpetuate the occupation, while the Iraq’s don’t want us to.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “There you go again Steve.
The President never said that.”

Are you saying that Pat Robertson is a liar?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html

WASHINGTON — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson (search) says he warned President Bush before U.S. troops invaded Iraq (search) that the United States would sustain casualties but that Bush responded, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

White House and campaign advisers denied that Bush made the comment, with Karen Hughes (search) saying, “I don’t believe that happened. He must have misunderstood or misheard it.”

Robertson, in a cable news interview that aired Tuesday night, said God had told him that the war would be messy and a disaster. When he met with Bush in Nashville before the war Bush did not listen to his advice, Robertson said, and believed Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed.

“He was just sitting there, like, ‘I’m on top of the world,’ and I warned him about this war,” Robertson said.

“I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, ‘Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.’ ‘Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘it’s the way it’s going to be.’ And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties

There you go again Steve.

The President never said that.

Put aside your bias for just a second. Do you really think that any President, ANY President would make such a claim on the eve of a war? There’s no way.

civil war

Again with the “civil war ” meme.

There is no civil war. That is a falsehood created by the media and disputed by the Iraqis.

100 years

Another intellectually dishonest, although convenient, snippet of a much larger quote which doesn’t fit your template.

It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months

Another half-quote which, if you cared to examine it in totality, you would find that Rumsfeld was referring to the actual invasion and toppling of Saddam.

Come on Steve.

I posted about your chosen pattern of behavior yesterday, yet you continue to forge ahead.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

For someone who accuses us of listening too, getting instructions from, and believing Pat Robertson (I doubt many conservatives here listen to him, as was pointed out to you), you sure quote him enough. I think either you or those supplying you with your 100% leftist approved thoughts are about the only ones giving him ratings.

And again with the lie of “civil war”. You then top it off by displaying your spoon fed ‘knowledge’ of the Green Zone and rant on. You proved yet again, as a 100% loyal brainwashed leftist, that you fall hook, line, and stinker for what your ‘thought leaders’ tell you. And we give you a 100% leftist pass.

I lived in The IZ (or Green Zone) for a while in Iraq in 2007 about 100m from the pool behind the “Presidential Palace” across from the Believers Palace. Watched myself “die” as CNN and NBC made up stories from their Hotel down the street which they never left. But then, no ammount of facts or reality will disuade you and you will continue to attack and slander all you want, claiming we are ‘haters’ and you are sooo clean and virtuous when you finally cross too many lines and we (I in particular as I stated a month or more ago) give you and your bile mantra no quarter.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “I’d say that’s rather insulting to the Iraqis who have been giving their lives in the cause of “standing up”. ”
Quite using the “honest Iraqi’s” as an alibi. You know as well as I do that Iraqi warlords have been fighting for turf throughout the country, using American trained troops and weapons. Or are you pretending that never happened?

http://electroniciraq.net/news/war-every-day-blog/Opium_in_Iraq_and_Iraqi_warlords-3281.shtml

.

Re: “If this were a war you believed in and supported, would you still be bitching and whining, and admit it takes long-term commitment and an unwavering will to persevere when the going gets tough?”

That’s not what the Bush Administration told America.

Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties

“It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

“The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark.”
–Donald Rumsfeld, February 2003, three weeks before the invasion of Iraq
“It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”– February 2003

.

Re: “There’s a difference between running out the clock and having insufficient time to achieve generational changes whose fruits might not even be fully known within one’s lifetime. ”

So you are prepared for Americans to be in the middle of a civil war for another 100 years. The Iraqis have a blank check, with no need to reconcile since they now know that no matter what happens, the United States will bail out their warring factions and there will be no consequences for the elite, safe in theGreen Zone, to command their US paid and equipped militias to fight on forever, since the US commitment is unconditional and unlimited.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes, THANK YOU DAVID (#32).

You will notice that willfully ignorant lefties like Philly Steve love to parade their ignorance and pretend it is fact. That is the mind warping effect of the big lie they have told themselves about the conduct of U.S. Troops and the Bush Administration.

In Philly’s case the pathology is increasingly evident even to casual readers. His rants, often showing more bile than brains are symptomatic of the disease.

Like or Dislike: 0  0