« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Back in November, President Bush and Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki hashed out the principles for the two countries' "enduring relationship": a long-term American troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for a guarantee of security for the Iraqis. It was a deal we summarized at the time as "U.S. To Stay In Iraq Forever."
So it shouldn't come as a surprise that when the two sides sit down at the table, the definition of "enduring" raises some eyebrows.
The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir, is in Washington, D.C. to continue work on defining the American commitment in Iraq. A formal agreement will emerge by July, The New York Times reports. As TPM alum Spencer Ackerman reported here, such an agreement would not require Congress' approval, but would require the Iraqi parliament's OK.
So... the numbers. Qadir tells the Times that 2012 and 2020 are his target dates -- for full internal security and security against external threats, respectively. What that means for the size of our "enduring presence" isn't so clear:
“According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country,” Mr. Qadir said in an interview on Monday, conducted in Arabic through an interpreter.“In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020,” he added.
He offered no specifics on a timeline for reducing the number of American troops in Iraq.
The Times' notes that Qadir's projections were slightly less dire last year, when he projected full security by 2018. But if there's anything the Iraq War has taught us, it's to take government prognostications very lightly.
Josh
Zachary
The US will leave Iraq when there is no longer any oil in Iraq - why is that so difficult to comprehend?
January 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds just like a Bush deal. US lives for US company profits.
But just how does the US taxpayer who pays for this, benefit???
US Marines the enforcement arm of Standard oil, they have been used this way for a hundred years.
January 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush-Cheney: enduring menace
January 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that we know how long we are going to occupy Iraq, it is time to put it in the budget and pay for it on a pay as you go basis. It is also time for our Senators and Representatives to inform us exactly how we will pay for it. Are they going to pay for it through raising taxes? If so, how much? Are they going to pay for it by further reducing services? If so, exactly which services are going they going to cut and by how much.
As citizens, we needed to push for these answers.
January 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What good is an agreement with an so-called "democratic" Iraqi government that cannot sustain itself without American military force? How is that a "democracy" instead of a military "dictatorship"? How is our military presence any different than the Iraqi Army that propped up Saddam Hussein or America's propping up of the Shah of Iran?
January 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
First it was a couple of weeks, then a couple of months. Now it's been 5 years, it's been project at 10, 15, 20, 50 and 100 years.
What a focking car-salesman con job.
January 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with MO Blue, if this is what we're heading for (a long term commitment), we should be putting the cost in the budget. Not hiding the true cost with these funding bills that are outside the budget. People should be able to see what this is really costing us.
January 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this is costing is thecapacity to respond effectively to a recession with a stimulus package. U.S. military spending is also costing the USA a decent health care system and the world an effective U.S. and therefore an effective collective response to climate change.
January 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In June 2007 the US handed over security in Northern Iraq to the Kurds. At the time U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Kurt A. Cichowski said:
“It is important to understand that Coalition forces will always be here to support the Government of Iraq,”
Sure it's possible that the U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen., deputy chief of staff, strategy, plans and assessment for MNF-I simply misspoke. But I think it's more likely that they are thing "we will ALWAYS be there".
Great.
January 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As of today, how much investment in that country, by large multinational corporations, has there been ?
I cannot recall Shell or Chevron announcing financial commitments in Iraq. (They could be using entities created to conceal their investments.)
Has anyone heard of any multinational investments so far ? During the Bremer regime the legal status of the place was so doubtful that all the multinationals decided to pass.
For those large oil fields to be properly developed there will have to be huge investment - capital and engineering.
So far : nothing ? Anyone know about this ?
January 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
To RandyR,
We all need to remember the idealogy of the Republican Party. They want to eliminate every social program. They feel no responsibilty to help people other than themselves. Money was created for them and them only.
These same republicans have allowed corporations to go overseas to avoid paying taxes (NAFTA,CAFTA,DAFTA). They want to eliminate the capital gains and the estate tax (death tax to them), taxes that really only help the very rich. These changes are so rich people can get richer. This is how the republicans accumulate power. Give to the rich so they can give to the party. If I was a very rich person I know who I'd be voting for. This also allows the rich to transfer their wealth to their heirs keeping the wealth and power in the new blood lines. This is called anarchy, ie, the Waltons, Hiltons, etc. These people didn't even earn it but ask them and they'll let you know they "deserve" it.
The benefit for us little people? None really. We don't have enough money in our bank accounts to be thought of. Why do you think we are in Iraq and not Darfur,Korea or Afghanistan?
The republicans have bankrupted the Social Security system on purpose. They did it by spending the billions of dollars of surplus on their war instead of taxing fairly to pay for it. Have you noticed that they have no intention of repaying the SS system back? Instead they will give us a private retirement account and surround it with the message, "we know how to invest our money better than the government". Just what I want, another volatile IRA account. This idea will definitely make more billionaires in Wall Street.
Next up is our health care system. If republicans get their way, corporations will be allowed to drop health care coverage for employees or charge so much it'll feel like we're paying for it all. Business will say they can't make any profits (beat wall streets estimates) without relief. The message will be, "take personal responsibility for our health". I find it funny how the republicans are crying out how the dems are wanting socialized medicine, when in fact, the dems want to institute the same program the republican congressman and senators have for their health insurance. I guess that system is for the entitled, privileged few.
We all need to remember, this is that "take ownership" (you're on your own) society the Republicans speak of.
How many more days until we get rid of these @#%$@ guys?
January 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see more exploration of the idea that Bush can enter into an international agreement without ratification from Congress that will be binding on the next administration. While it may be true that a "status of forces agreement" typically doesn't require congressional approval, if Bush does it unilaterally, what exactly would prevent the next president from withdrawing from it unilaterally? What would prevent Congress from blocking funding for whatever troop deployments it mandates?
This seems especially pertinent since Bush has established that the president can decide to withdraw from actual ratified treaties with no consultation with anyone. I'm very concerned about this meme of "he can do it; nothing we can do about it" becoming too firmly established.
January 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, all Democrats could stop using oil powered engines for a year and see exactly how long they could last before their lives crumbled to hell. Perhaps it might be clearer that, sadly, this country's livelihood - its continued existence - is dependent on oil, like it or not. And that's why we send soldiers out for it. And that's why you need to come up with a better plan before you criticize this one.
January 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US has three branches of government: The Congress is involved with funding decisions. Having problems with this, asks the US to defer to the Iraqi legislature, not US legislature:
"As TPM alum Spencer Ackerman reported here, such an agreement would not require Congress' approval, but would require the Iraqi parliament's OK."
1. Article I, Section 8
There may be an "agreement", but Congress, if not involved, is not required to "fully fund" any commitments.
2. Treaties
Up to the Senate, if it is not, as it decides, involved in a treaty, whether to fully fund or not fund these funding commitments.
January 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This non-sense of "US has obligations to Iraq" (which require funding) belies reality: The US, despite Geneva obligations, did not fully fund the required prisoner detention facilities.
January 15, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Redshift asks: "What would prevent Congress from blocking funding for whatever troop deployment it mandates?"
The answer, of course,...the same group of spineless, un-principled, AIPAC and special-interests beholden DINOs who could not bring themselves to contemplate impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice-President of the most corrupt, destructive (of Constitutional freedoms), and dictatorial regime in the history of the U.S. of A.
January 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
>this country's livelihood - its continued existence - is dependent on oil, like it or not. And that's why we send soldiers out for it.<
I thought it was because of WMDs or to help Iraqi women or because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy or to fight terrorists over there instead of here.
Nope we've given up all pretense and now openly admit we're trading blood for oil. And apparently this is supposed to stand as an argument.
"But if we don't kill soldiers and Iraqi civilians by the tens of thousands you can't drive your SUV!!!"
Well, then I'll just sit the hell down and shut up then won't I? You told me....
January 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink