Senior Iraqi official says security pact with US could be signed in July

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

updated 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt - A security agreement that will pave the way for a long-term U.S. troop presence after most forces withdraw from Iraq could be signed in the coming months, the Iraqi foreign minister said Sunday.

Iraqi officials attending the World Economic Forum in this Red Sea resort said Al-Qaida in Iraq has been significantly weakened. That has raised hopes among some that the country will soon be able to reduce its dependence on American troops.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said negotiations to conclude the security agreement with the U.S. are in progress and could be concluded by July — a target date Americans and Iraqis have mentioned before.

~snip~

One of the major sticking points is the role of American troops in the future, he said. Another issue still under discussion is what role can U.S. troops play outside Iraq.

"We need to finalize how many troops will remain and for how long and where and what they will be doing," the official said. "Another issue is the immunities which they need."



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24696551/

[MichiganVote]

1. And this will cost how much?$?$?$?$

[windbreeze]

2. So now I gather

that Al-ciada was always THE problem in Iraq? That was why we invaded??? It had nothing to do with WMD?? It had nothing to do with "liberating" the Iraqi's from Saddam's evil rule????When did they manage to change the mantra they used to invade??? This thing has made a 360 degree turn...

"Iraqi officials attending the World Economic Forum in this Red Sea resort said Al-Qaida in Iraq has been significantly weakened. That has raised hopes among some that the country will soon be able to reduce its dependence on American troops."

hmmmmm, I find it interesting the way the truth is manipulated...wb

[dasein]

3. Hrm

This wouldn't be that pesky SoFA that Congress DIDN'T get to have a say in as they legally have a right to, is it? Because if they haven't had a say in this they'd better make it REAL clear REAL fast that BushCo isn't going to be allowed to pull unilateral crap like this...or else Congress will make itself truly, supremely irrelevant and this will be a dictatorship indeed.

Also: "Another issue is the immunities which they need." Now why would our troops need special immunities if they are supposedly going to be doing normal legal things? Shouldn't they (and our contractors) be subject to some sort of law in order to make sure that Iraqis are treated with respect and things work smoothly? Especially if our troops won't be doing combat operations in Iraq. Everything about this smells fishy.

[maddezmom]

4. welcome to DU and I believe you're correct about the SoFA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3134134

[grytpype]

5. "what role can U.S. troops play outside Iraq" ?????????

I don't even want to know. I really don't.

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. That WAS one of those "things that make you go 'hmmmmm...'" statements, wasn't it?

Or, perhaps more directly, "things that make you go 'WTF???'"

[kristopher]

7. Bush won't get away with this.

A status of forces agreement cannot, in any way, be construed as a framework for national COMMITMENT of security forces. The SOFA is a bilateral agreement on the legal jurisdiction of US forces on duty within a foreign country over a range of possible legal matters.

An attempt to turn a status of forces agreement into a mechanism for a security commitment that is unarguably within the legal definition of a treaty, would be laughed out of court; even a Bushie court.

[Buns_of_Fire]

10. IF the Senate chooses to get sticky about it. But my personal WTF? moment comes from...

that phrase "what role can U.S. troops play outside Iraq." (emphasis mine)

Maybe I'm parsing it too literally, or maybe I'm just dense about it, but I don't see what concern it is of Iraq's what US troops are doing outside their country within the context of a SOFA agreement with Iraq.

[kristopher]

12. i clicked the wrong link, see my reply post 11. nt

[matt007]

8. permenant bases

We'll probably have about five or six permenant bases over there. Not counting the Green Zone.....where everything is green magical and perfect.

[matt007]

9. Afghanistan too

Bagram is one of the perm. bases. Probably three or four more other than that.

They are trying to make this long haul.

[kristopher]

11. The US military umbrella

The US military umbrella comes at a cost - we benefit by gaining staging areas from which to strike regional targets. They want veto power over that benefit. As I'm sure you know, we staged Korea out of Japan, and Vietnam out of Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. It is long haul to the other side of the world.