Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > News

News This is the forum where we post hard news and current events. If it is outside the box then that is where it goes. If it is your opinion, please write in the Op/Ed forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-27-2008, 01:13 PM   #1
Michael
Senior Level 1
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,758
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default US Threatens To Halt Services to Iraq Without Troop Accord

Published on Monday, October 27, 2008 by McClatchy Newspapers
US Threatens To Halt Services to Iraq Without Troop Accord
by Roy Gutman and Leila Fadel

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1 if the Iraqi government doesn't agree to a new agreement on the status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations mandate for the American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, listed "tens" of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, and he said the implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.

"It was really shocking for us," he said. "Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing."

Odierno had no comment Sunday, but U.S. Embassy officials told McClatchy that a lengthy list of the sort Hashimi described has been passed to the Iraqi government. Among the services the U.S. provides are protection of Iraq's principal borders, of its oil exports and other shipping through the Shatt al Arab into the Persian Gulf and all air traffic control over Iraq.

The status of forces agreement, which calls for a final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, was supposed to resolve a number of contentious issues between the two countries, but its completion 10 days ago has instead provoked a political crisis within Iraq's Shiite-dominated government and between Iraq and the United States.

Fearing a major battle in the Iraqi parliament, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki solicited proposed amendments from his cabinet and called a meeting to review them Sunday afternoon.

However, the two main Shiite parties, Maliki's Dawa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, were unable to produce their full lists of demands, and he postponed the meeting until Tuesday, other cabinet members said.

Hashimi said that Iran, a longtime backer of both parties, is pressuring Iraq's leaders not to accept the agreement.

The dispute "is real and factual. The government is not manipulating this dispute," Hashimi said. He said he hadn't yet seen the objections to the accord, even those from his own Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party.

Political party heads, including Hashimi, say that Maliki is responsible for the agreement, but Maliki has been unwilling to back the accord unless his Shiite coalition and other party members join him to take the political heat.

An additional complication is the decision of Hashimi's Iraqi Islamic party to suspend all "official communication" with U.S. military and civilian officials until it receives an explanation and an apology following a joint U.S.-Iraqi military raid against party backers in Anbar province in which one man was killed.

It's unclear what will happen when the Iraqi cabinet offers a list of proposed changes and Maliki winnows them down to proposed amendments.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, "I don't think you slam the door shut" on amendments, but Hashimi said the U.S. is "adamant in saying, 'We close the door, we are not accepting any sort of amendment.' "

He said that if the United States met Iraq halfway and accepted amendments to the controversial articles of the accord, it would make it "rather easy" to submit the agreement to the parliament.

The alternative to a new agreement governing U.S. forces, an Iraqi request to the U.N. Security Council to extend the U.N. mandate, which now expires on Dec. 31, is also highly contentious.

One of the biggest concessions Iraq won from Washington in the negotiations over the forces accord was a stipulation that private contractors such as Blackwater that have been accused of killing Iraqi civilians would become subject to Iraqi law.

Immunity from prosecution for private contractors _ and for all official U.S. entities _ under Iraqi law was promulgated by the U.S. occupation government in June 2004, and ending that order is the subject of another confrontation between Iraq and the United States, Hashimi said. He said the United States insists that it would reject any Iraqi request to change the mandate.

Ironically, Iraqi politicians of practically every stripe agree that the proposed agreement would be a major advance toward restoring Iraq's full sovereignty and a vast improvement over the initial U.S. proposal made last spring.

He credited President Bush with changing the U.S. position as a result of twice-weekly conference calls with Maliki.


URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/27-2
__________________
The national debt =
Michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 01:48 PM   #2
Susie
I am NOT French, I just happen to live here
 
Susie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SW France
Posts: 2,893
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
It always gets down to threats, doesn't it.
Susie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 01:58 PM   #3
Michael
Senior Level 1
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,758
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
This is coming down to an impasse. They tried compromise in allowing a generous timeline for withdrawal. Then Al Sadr called for rallies in the streets against the plan. Very few legislators including Al Malaki want to endorse the plan as they would probably get killed. Now the US threatening shutting down services is the next step into a worse impasse.

All I have to say is if we shut down our support after the deadline for Iraq to sign off on continued US presence in Iraq - what do they expect will happen? I would expect our troops would bear the brunt of it becoming targets for angry Iraqis wanting them out of their country. Either you have a limited timetable and they stay or pull them out ASAP so they don't become targets for the locals to shoot at.
__________________
The national debt =
Michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 01:59 PM   #4
A.T. Hagan
Just some fella on the Internet
 
A.T. Hagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North/Central Florida
Posts: 4,152
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, one side wants it both ways and even then can't get their act together to decide exactly what it is they DO want.

The other side (the Americans) aren't too keen on keeping their people exposed with no working agreement to cover them with.

In a nutshell.

.....Alan.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.

Alan's Stuff: The Prudent Food Storage FAQ and more.
http://athagan.members.atlantic.net/Index.html
A.T. Hagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 02:03 PM   #5
Fiddlerdave
Not Active
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,847
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."
Nice to see they still have a sense of humor there.

This is an interesting situation. The Iraqis have been particularly angry about the mercenaries there not being subject to any law at all, theirs or ours. Some of the trophy videos I have watched have been nauseating.

However, Bush has now threatened to end everything of this once crucial war on terror objective in order to ensure the mercs are free to commit any mayhem they wish, cutoff and withdrawal VASTLY more abrupt and damaging than even Code Pink would have wanted. (Would the deal had gone through if the mercenaries being subject to somebody's law had been offered? We will never know!)

Apparently, this objective is not so important as represented.

Not to mention the whole tactic on the part of Bush is quite possibly very ill-considered (what's new in that?). As the deadline approaches, it is sounding like the Iraqis may INSIST on Bush keeping his threat promise.

War over.
Fiddlerdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 02:27 PM   #6
Michael
Senior Level 1
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,758
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
You have the Al Malaki Iranian Ayotellah Khomeni loyal Shia faction. You have the Al Sadr Iraqi Ayotellah Sistani loyal Shia faction. Both Shia factions want us out of Iraq, but Al Malaki has supported a timeline and Al Sadr wants us out immediately. You have the Sunni Muslims with different clan-tribal loyalties. Then you have the Kurds in the North. The Kurds are worried about a Turkish invasion and want the US to stay. The Sunni are concerned about more ethnic cleansing by the Shia militias and want the US to stay. Proportionally, the Shia factions represent about two thirds of Iraq.
__________________
The national debt =
Michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2008, 03:44 PM   #7
frodo
Not Active
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,758
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."
Under the Geneva convention an occupying power is not permitted to shut down "everything". Furthermore, shutting down "everything" will shut down the U.S. military forces. since they require a major, contractor driven, ground logistics effort to support themselves.

To put it another way, it's both illegal under international law and impossible to do this.

Furthermore, it's an invitation to Syria and Iran to fill the vacuum under the guise of humanitarian aid if Bush was stupid enough to try - which I guess he is.
frodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2008, 04:05 PM   #8
Fiddlerdave
Not Active
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,847
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Under the Geneva convention an occupying power is not permitted to shut down "everything". Furthermore, shutting down "everything" will shut down the U.S. military forces. since they require a major, contractor driven, ground logistics effort to support themselves.
Well, we know what both the Geneva Convention AND conditions for the troops mean to this administration. Not much.
Fiddlerdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2008, 09:26 PM   #9
dyrt
. . .
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,825
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 9
Thanked 136 Times in 96 Posts
The Iraqi government need political cover. They very much want the US to stay longer because they are afraid that the police and army can not control the country. A minister stated the other day that they are afraid the Iranians will assassinate him and others if they don't resist the Americans. They desperately need something to give themselves cover for the final vote that is coming.

The notice from the commander is the cover they need. The people want us out someday but like the services they are getting. This story tells me that the deal is done and a vote to approve will soon happen.
dyrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:26 AM   #10
User
Member
 
User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 69
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Services? What services? I thought the U.S. was there to kill ragheads
User is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 09:19 AM   #11
cpeterka
Pour Le Syrup Unto Der Pancakes.
 
cpeterka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Cold Upper Northern Section of the Earth
Posts: 219
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If you don't play by OUR Rules, We're gonna take our toys and go home ??
cpeterka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 11:37 PM   #12
SSG Rex
Disgruntled Armed Libertarian Underpaid Veteran
 
SSG Rex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Killeen, TX
Posts: 1,128
Thanks: 14
Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo View Post
Under the Geneva convention an occupying power is not permitted to shut down "everything". Furthermore, shutting down "everything" will shut down the U.S. military forces. since they require a major, contractor driven, ground logistics effort to support themselves.

To put it another way, it's both illegal under international law and impossible to do this.
I think you're mistaken. The wording of the article states that the US will shut down everything that WE provide to the Iraqis, which is miles away from halting their internal operations. There's no law saying we have to use our resources to augment their schools and hospitals and police forces and power plants.
And maybe, just maybe, if we held back some support, they'd get off their collective butts and use some of those billions and billions of dollars they've profited off their oil and our blood that the Iraqi government is just sitting on.

Nor would the US shut down chow halls and field hospitals used by coalition forces - that would be ludicrous.

When we defended Kuwait, the cost of logistics and material was heavily funded by the Kuwaiti government, even well after the Gulf War was over. Kuwait is a postage stamp compared to Iraq, and they have proportionally less assets - but still plenty to spare for their allies. Iraq profited just last year more money than the US has spent since 2003, and hasn't seen fit to return us a single Dinar. Nor has the Iraqi public seen but a scant fraction of those profits. With Saddam gone, it's back to business as usual for Iraq, and corruption is the Iraqi way of doing business.

Not that invasion for profit is the right way to do things, but in the last few years, we've played policeman, doctor, housekeeper, handyman, and nanny for Iraq, and the Iraqi government and "military" has collectively sat on their asses. It's their damn country, they should take the responsibility of running it. Maybe us "going on strike" and pulling up stakes would wake them up.

If it was up to me, I'd follow the Cartman doctrine...
"Screw you guys, I'm going home!"
__________________
"No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of Arms" - Thomas Jefferson

CVMA Full Member #2196
Patriot Guard Riders
American Legion Riders Texas Post 573
NRA Life Member
Oath Keeper
Texas Sons of Liberty Rider

The opinions expressed above do not represent the position of the US Army or the DOD.
SSG Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2008, 12:16 AM   #13
BugoutBear
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: East Coast
Posts: 156
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"US Threatens"
That's interesting. . .
BugoutBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2008, 12:20 AM   #14
BugoutBear
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: East Coast
Posts: 156
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I know too many names over there to have them maimed or wasted on such nonsense.

The damn Iraqi economy's in the black while ours has bled dry.
F- them, let them sort it out amongst themselves, bring my people home.
BugoutBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
accord, halt, iraq, services, threatens, troop

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.