“All U.S. forces must withdraw from all Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011.”
That’s the text of Article 24, para 1 of the the text of the agreement the US and Iraqi governments reached agreement on over the weekend, as published by Al-Sabah in Baghdad. Raed Jarrar sends us to this English-language translation of the whole Sabah text, which I’ve also uploaded here.)
So why do we not yet see the text of this important document on any of the US government’s many websites yet, or those of the US MSM?
And why did White House press flack Dana Perino today say that the deadline for withdrawal in the text is only “aspirational”? (HT: Ryan of Think Progress.)
Is Perino auditioning for a post-White House career as the Red Queen in “Alice’s Adventures Through the Looking Glass”? You know, the one who says that “Words mean only what I want them to mean”?
Memo to Bush: Tell us what this important agreement with the Baghdad government actually says!
Specifically, the translation that Raed gave us says in “Article 24, Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq” the following:
- Recognizing the improvement of the Iraqi security forces and their increased capabilities, and the fact that they are in charge of all security operations, and based on the strong relationship between the two sides, both sides have agreed on the following:
1- All U.S. forces must withdraw from all Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011.
2- All U.S. combat forces must withdraw from all cities, towns, and villages as soon as the Iraqi forces take over the full security responsibility in them. The U.S. withdrawal from these areas shall take place no later than June 30th, 2009
3- All withdrawn U.S. combat troops in accordance to paragraph 2 [shall] regroup in installations and areas agreed upon located outside cities, towns, and villages. These installations and areas agreed upon will be specified by the Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC) before the date mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article.
4- The U.S. recognizes Iraq’s sovereign right to request a U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq at any time. The Iraqi government recognizes the United States’ sovereign right to request a U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq at any time.
5- Both sides agree on creating mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the U.S. forces levels within the specified time period, and both sides must agree on where these forces will be located.
HC:
I know you will have me head, even if you are a Quaker for posting this here-I wish there were a suggestions posting place…but how about a “good news” tag-How nice that people from a place you know too well are contributing to the world’s delicious once again-People who have suffered so much reconstitute their lives, livlihoods-
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=97778
Ah, let us hope there will much more of this to come-
KDJ
It seems like there must be loopholes in the proposed treaty we’re not allowed to see.
I note that the US Senate has no hearings scheduled on this vital matter, in noncompliance with its Constitutional requirement for advice and consent on treaties, even considering that two members of this body have been elected to represent us in the highest offices of the land. Shame on Obama and Biden! And send Harry Reid back to Searchlight!
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm
Iraq, on the other hand, seems to be more democratic (I hate them for their freedom).
news report:
Iraq’s 275-member parliament will conduct numerous hearings and debates this week before the SOFA is submitted for a final vote, which according its rules can take place no earlier than Nov. 24.
It’s aspirational.
Aspire: to have a noble desire
Dana Perino, Nov 17:
“. . .we said that we would work with the Iraqis to establish a date that we would aspire to . . .One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates . . .this agreement doesn’t mean that a future President, the President-elect, would not be able to change this agreement later on if he saw fit or if the Iraqis saw fit.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081117.html
See, it’s not a treaty, it’s just an agreement, and agreements can be unilaterally changed. It’s the new reality.
I don’t think that Obama will have a problem with it, do you? It’s constancy you can believe in.
And why did White House press flack Dana Perino today say that the deadline for withdrawal in the text is only “aspirational”?
Six years of killing and demolishing Iraqi state by Occupying forces and now as you believes Iraqi asked the occupier to protect them by this full of lies treaty.
Wait read this about what withdraw would mean and how:
Oddly, all US treaties around the world had done when there is no daily killing and resistance to US occupations examples S. Korea, Japan Germany and others, but in Iraq US troops facing every day threat from native people of Iraq.
And why did White House press flack Dana Perino today say that the deadline for withdrawal in the text is only “aspirational”?
Six years of killing and demolishing Iraqi state by Occupying forces and now as you believes Iraqi asked the occupier to protect them by this full of lies treaty.
Wait read this about what withdraw would mean and how:
Oddly, all US treaties around the world had done when there is no daily killing and resistance to US occupations examples S. Korea, Japan Germany and others, but in Iraq US troops facing every day threat from native people of Iraq.
Memo to Bush: Tell us what this important agreement with the Baghdad government actually says!
I am slightly puzzled by the lack of comprehension here.
The Arabic text looks to me pretty clear; the Iraqis wouldn’t have agreed to anything less. We’ve just spent months getting to this point. The Iraqis were in a pretty good position – they understood what was going on, whereas the US negotiators were consistently in denial of reality. They thought Maliki was playing a little game on his own – which would soon collapse – whereas in fact he was representing widespread sentiment in Iraq.
The obvious reason that the US doesn’t want to release an English text, and Perrino talks about “aspirational dates”, is that they’re ashamed of what they agreed to, that they’ve just given away the (undeclared) US position.
I don’t think by the way that there are secret loopholes in the English text, which are going to permit the US to stay in Iraq for ever. The Iraqis would never have agreed to such conditions in the present atmosphere. Nor do I think that the fact that the agreement is not going pass before the Senate will change much either: again it’s to avoid embarrassment. Though the politics of that could change in the years to come, though I don’t for the moment know how.
The Greatest Story Never Told
Finally, the U.S. Mega-Bases in Iraq Make the News
By Tom Engelhardt
It’s the “Korean Model.” The Koreans have never had a say regarding the US military presence in their country, except to contribute financially, and now 56 years after the Korean War the Pentagon has made Korea an accompanied tour and is building vast new facilities for the housing, education and recreation of US military families in this faraway land near China.
There was never any Korean or US congressional consideration of this significant expansion of the US empire, either. The Pentagon is a force unto its own and drags the “Commander in Chief” and “host countries” with it. It’s what Eisenhower warned us about.
I normally shy away from predictions, but I think it’s quite safe to say that the US military will never leave Iraq.
In fairness to Admiral Mullen, chinaview took his “conditions” statement out of context. He was talking about the possibility of Obama pulling troops out earlier.
* All American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 under the status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.
*Mullen said he is, of course, aware that President-elect Barack Obama has said he would speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If ordered, the U.S. military could speed up the withdrawal, he said, but added that he would like for any such actions to be based on conditions in Iraq.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51969
Mullen was obviously behind the White House power curve and hadn’t been apprised of the new “aspiration” policy and (amazingly!) of the policy to keep troops in Iraq. I imagine he was taken to the woodshed over that. Mullen’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The White House did get to Admiral Mullen and he caved totally on 2011.
“No, I’m in a position that is still conditions-based, and I think it needs to be measured in a — and it needs to be — and again, conditions continue to improve in a way where we are allowed to withdraw forces and — or — and we’ve done that very specifically. And as I’ve said for a significant period of time, you know, I am hopeful that conditions will continue to improve, so we can continue to do that.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4318
“I normally shy away from predictions, but I think it’s quite safe to say that the US military will never leave Iraq.”
Don – I think you are being unduly pessimistic. It appears the SOFA text is very specific about the complete withdrawal date.
Short of a complete failure to approve the SOFA or achieve a new UN mandate — which might force the US to leave ASAP — the SOFA may be the best we could expect from either Bush or Obama.
Obama’s pledge to remove troops in 16 months always meant only the combat troops, leaving open the possibility of a long-term occupation.
(My take on why his pledge was conditioned this way is that he did not want to either lay himself open to right-wing charges of “losing Iraq” or to commit himself in a way that left him without options if Iraq fell apart over the next few years. I personally am in favor of an “Out Now” policy, but if Obama’s campaign pledge signified simply a cautious and pragmatic approach, that is a very welcome change to the current rigid policy of open-ended commitment.)
In any case, as others have pointed out, having Bush agree to the SOFA with a date certain (however much Bush may want us to view it as “aspirational”) helps insulate Obama (and by extension all of us who have been advocating withdrawal) from the “stab-in-the-back” story that the right wing will surely trot out if Iraq disintegrates after all troops are out.
The SOFA also gives Obama the flexibility (which we should be agitating to make sure he uses) to withdraw sooner than 2011.
(And for the younger readers: it’s fairly important that people opposing US militarism not have to waste energy continually defending ourselves against right wing charges that we are responsible for preventing an American “victory.” I’ve been hearing that line about Vietnam for almost 40 years now, and I heard it again this year marching in our local Veterans Day parade with a Veterans for Peace banner.)
Art 4 section 1 talks about cooperating in operations against AQ etc and …”remnants of the former regime”. And Art 24 section 4 talks about US-held detainees to be either turned over to the Iraqi authorities in cases of proper warrants, or else to be released–unless the Iraqis request otherwise “pursuant to Art 4” (re remnants of the former regime, AQ, etc). No wonder Iran dropped its opposition. Three years (to end-2011) is a long time, if the US is going to continue supporting a divisive, arbitrary and sectarian regime. One can see why Iran dropped its opposition. What about the silence of the Democratic Party policy groupies on this?
One can see why Iran dropped its opposition.
Same so for “ugly” Sistani beast hide in his underground spider hole…. He went to mute mode but that common why should he be concerned with Iraq is he Iraqi or Nationalist…as son as he got paid millions through his son from Bremer time and on..
Pact, Approved in Iraq
While we all look at that shiny object named SOFA, what is happening with the Strategic Framework Agreement???
That was signed too. What’s in it?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/11/the-iraq-sofa-i.html
I have an additional concern. Does this agreement address the withdrawal of American military contractors? “Companies” like Blackwater are doing work that normally would be done by combat troops.
There maybe as many of these mercenaries occupying Iraq as regular solders.
Raed is not at all impressed by this “agreement”, and neither am I. The good news is that it is unlikely to get by the Parliament.
I think it’s obvious now, based on what we know, that the Repubs and Dems are in collusion on the pact with Iraq which includes the Strategic Framework Agreement and the SOFA, now called SOFA. The State Department was the lead agency on this treaty, but it’s purposely not called a treaty.
The Repubs didn’t want it to be considered as a treaty so as to preclude Senate debate. They want a non-controversial agreement as they slither out the back door.
The Dems don’t want it to be a treaty because a treaty is the law of the land, and they want to retain executive privilege into the next administration when “based on conditions on the ground” the new Commander In Chief will retain a military presence in Iraq.
So the Constitution gets trashed for political expediency. There will be no Senate advice and consent on this treaty, as required by the Constitution. Bush’s ‘signing statements’ will make any agreement not worth the paper it’s written on, which seems to be fine with Obama/Biden and their agent Harry Reid. None of them is worth a damn on this issue.
Those mega-bases will continue to house Americans forever.
And there’s not a dimes’ worth of difference between the Repubs and the Dems. The change will be seamless. I just googled obama/aspirational/news and got nothing. Obama is a no-show on this issue, so he retains freedom to recant his worthless campaign vows.
That’s the plan. Let’s see if in the democratic (compared to the US) Iraq Republic the Sadrists pick up on the subterfuge now underway in Washington. I bet (hope) that they will.
The good news is that it is unlikely to get by the Parliament.
What a jok!
“the pact with Iraq”
Can we please not call it that? This is not a pact “with” Iraq, it is something completely different.
“Obama…retains freedom to recant his worthless campaign vows.”
Don, as I have been harping constantly from the beginning of the primary campaign, Obama never vowed to end the imperial project in Iraq. On the contrary, he spelled out quite clearly and in considerable detail his intention to reconfigure and continue it (and his plans were virtually identical to Hillary’s). From the beginning of the primary campaign I have pointed this out over and over and over again to an audience of the deaf* that is just now discovering what some of us understood a very long time ago. Can you hear me now? Obama was not ever a peace candidate, and he will not be a peace president. He will never end the occupation of Iraq, he never intended to, and he never said he would.
*Well, mainly the audience has had their hands covering their ears while loudly singing “lalalalalala we can’t HEEEEEAAAAAR you, lalalalalalalalala”.
The above “Rant” just shows how people been flip-flop when they talking.
Is this puzzle here we reading?
People thinks are smart by starting discussing a case the outcome is obvious and the goals very clear as setup scenario for sale, as this SOFA.
There is nothing telling other way, this is not a treaty between sovereign countries at all, in fact occupier like to cover-up their backs by doing this treaty. it’s just like The Iraq Sovereignty Handover by Paul Bremer to US puppet government, left behind Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing 100 U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
while those 100 US left behind control each ministry and all important place and position, all Iraqi ministers can not make orders unless approved first by those left behind with power to fire the Iraqi ministers if they do not serve US interests.
The wealthy socialist president Obama looks for change and telling he will withdrew US troops from Iraq.
Why should believe in his words?
Is it because he is black?
Is he because he said he will change?
What make him different from GWB who promised Palestinians with Two State Solution before ending his term?
What make him different from the tens of past US Presidents?
US ME foreign policy its a long waiting saga within US foreign policies, Go read your history from the Abdul Aziz al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia and President Roosevelt, February 14, 1945, aboard the U.S.S. Quincy …till now.
Mullen was obviously behind the White House power curve and hadn’t been apprised of the new “aspiration” policy
Three Bush appointees likely to stay when Obama takes over
Mullen Says US Needs at Least Two Years for Full Iraq Pullout.
Hum that means five years for start
Overseen and Overheard in Iraq
By Stephen Farrell
“Falling Off Could Result in Severe Injury or Death.”
–Sign on golf cart at the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
“After this thing passes I’m never using the word SOFA again. Couch, chair, chaise longue, anything. Just not sofa.”
–American journalist, Baghdad.
“In news coming out of the UK, a senior British judge has attacked Britain and the US over their 2003 invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law.
In a speech to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Lord Bingham accused Britain and the US of acting like “world vigilantes”.
The US has been weighed and found wanting in the 21st Century.”
‘Iraq war was not justified’
“SYDNEY: Australia’s former military chief has said there was no evidence to justify going to war in Iraq in 2003, a report said on Saturday. Admiral Chris Barrie, who headed the Australian Defence Force at the time, made the comments during an interview for a new television series about former prime minister John Howard’s decade in power. “I have to say, even up until the day I retired, I never saw any evidence that said suddenly we had to go off and do a job in Iraq,” Barrie said, as quoted by the ABC on its website. The ABC has produced the series, which features extensive interviews with Howard and begins airing on Monday. Howard’s 11 years in power ended last year with a landslide election defeat by current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was highly controversial and Howard, a political conservative, was one of the most vocal supporters of US President Bush both over Iraq and the US president’s war on terror. Reuters”
We’re all Quakers now.
The old Obama wanted all combat troops out from Iraq this year, and said “It is important at this point that Congress offer specific constructive approaches to what’s proven to be a foreign policy disaster.”
The new Obama sounds like Hillary, as on 60 Minutes Sunday: “Well, I’ve said during the campaign [Liar], and I’ve stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops.”
The new Senator Obama also doesn’t want Congress to be involved in the SOFA because then it might properly become a treaty and reduce his future executive privileges, and he doesn’t want the Congress involved in future Iraq decisions either. It was fine for Bush but not for Obama. the new US Emperor.
“The old Obama wanted all combat troops out from Iraq this year…”
What Obama committed to was “all regular combat troops” out within 16 months of taking office. That means May, 2010, not this year. In addition he repeatedly spoke of leaving a “residual force” for an open-ended period of time. He specified a number of “missions” for that “residual force”, some of which involved “protecting American interests” in Iraq, and some of which clearly involved combat. He also made it pretty clear that he intended to keep Bush’s imperial citadel in Baghdad (risibly called an embassy) fully staffed and functional.
Those of us who listened to more than the pretty sound bytes have known all along what to expect from him and he is not disappointing us at all. Those who listened to and believed the sound bytes and the stuff on the campaign P.R. web site are surely feeling the disappointment set in.
You elected a politician. What did you expect?