« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Agree To Disagree? Maliki, Bush Admin Clash On Status Of Pullout Agreement
Some interesting news broke today that has been buried amid the orgy of convention coverage: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said -- apparently in a speech to tribal leaders in the Green Zone -- that the U.S. and Iraq had agreed that all "foreign soldiers" would leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Maliki was promptly shot down by the White House, which maintained there is no pullout date.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been working toward an agreement for months, with the U.S. seeking a legal basis for stationing troops in Iraq when U.N. authority expires at the end of this year.
Here's how Campbell Robertson of the International Herald Tribune reported Maliki's comments today:
Iraq and the United States have agreed on a date for the departure of all American troops as part of a broader security pact they are negotiating, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said Monday."There is actually an agreement concluded between the two parties over the definite date, which is 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.
Maliki made the comments in a speech to tribal leaders in the Green Zone in Baghdad, but it was far from clear that the issue had been settled.
In its own version of the story, Agence France-Presse runs a slightly different Maliki quote:
"There is an agreement between the two sides that there will be no foreign soldiers in Iraq after 2011," Maliki said in a statement issued by his office.
AFP also includes a stern denial from Bush Administration spokesman Tony Fratto, who maintains that "we have not yet finalized an agreement." Fratto even seems to back away from Condoleezza Rice's recent endorsement -- however mushy -- of a "timetable" for withdrawal. Fratto's comment, after the jump:
Fratto cited "great strides" by Iraqi security forces, but said any US troop pull-out would depend on conditions on the ground -- not a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal."We're optimistic that Iraq and the US can reach a mutual agreement on flexible goals for US troops to continue to return on success -- based on conditions on the ground -- and allow Iraqi forces to provide security for a sovereign Iraq," he said.
And the AFP story gives still more evidence of disjunction between the two sides:
On Friday, the chief Iraqi negotiator Mohammed al-Haj Hammoud told AFP that the security pact had been finalized by both sides and had already won Bush's approval -- drawing a swift White House denial.Hammoud said that under the 27-point deal, all American combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by next June ahead of a complete withdrawal by 2011.
The US Defense Department also stressed that a final accord had yet to be reached.
"The agreement is not completed," spokesman Bryan Whitman said at the Pentagon, adding that specifics were "still being worked through."
Anyone following the stream of anonymously sourced stories on the progress of the U.S.-Iraqi negotiations will recognize the head-spinning muddle here. We've heard several times now that a deal is close, or has been agreed to, but still remains subject to varying levels of approval from both sides. It's also far from clear whether any withdrawal agreement will apply merely to U.S. "combat troops" or to the broader "foreign presence" Maliki referred to today.
With Maliki's comments today, it appears the two negotiating parties aren't even sure where the other stands.
What happened to, "Will stand down, when they stand up?" Seems it's more like, "We'll crap down their necks, if they don't shut up!"
August 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply one more incompetent clusterfuck brought to you by this admin. That ole Bush magic touch...
August 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
More ammo for Obama's arsenal.
August 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the mental conditions on the white house grounds.
August 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question that I don't see TPM or anyone else really handling adequately.
What happens if Obama takes office, calls up Erik Prince, and tells him he wants Blackwater to do Thing X or Y, get the heck out of Iraq, etc., and Prince is...less than enthusiastic? What then? Blackwater is a $$$corporation$$$. The President of the United States has no official powers over them.
Let's recall that we have more contractors in Iraq than actual troops.
Asking this same question regarding domestic situations is even scarier.
August 25, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question that I don't see TPM or anyone else really handling adequately.
What happens if Obama takes office, calls up Erik Prince, and tells him he wants Blackwater to do Thing X or Y, get the heck out of Iraq, etc., and Prince is...less than enthusiastic? What then? Blackwater is a $$$corporation$$$. The President of the United States has no official powers over them.
Let's recall that we have more contractors in Iraq than actual troops.
Asking this same question regarding domestic situations is even scarier.
August 25, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an official command structure and a contractual obligation in place that Blackwater is bound to. Not to mention that the U.S. can exercise its legal authority and tell Blackwater to cease all operations in Iraq. If the CIC tells Eric Prince to do something and makes undeniably clear the consequnce of not doing so Prince would have no choice. Blackwater was invited into Iraq by the U.S. government and can be uninvited at any time. I am sure the president has complete authority in this regard. If that weren't the case it would imply that a U.S. corporation or a U.S. citizen could go anywhere in the world and commit crimes harmful to the U.S. without the U.S. being able to do anything about it.
August 26, 2008 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing to look at is how hard the Bushies are pushing to make sure contractors aren't liable under Iraqi law. If they refused to follow the US government, we certainly wouldn't be giving them legal cover any more, and you'd get whiplash watching how fast they got out of there.
August 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, Democracies and freedom only exist at the whim of the powerful United States...
Too bad we are hearing nothing about this amonst congressmen and senators of either parties. goes to show us just how unimportant this war is to anyone in Washington... can't let a war get in the way of vacations and parties.
Underlying this is the realization that most likely, Bush is stalling until McCain wins the election. That way, we can just continue as we have, with the same warmongers controlling the Washington folk and the folks getting rich from all these deaths getting richer from even more deaths...
August 25, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens if Obama takes office, calls up Erik Prince, and tells him he wants Blackwater to do Thing X or Y, get the heck out of Iraq, etc., and Prince is...less than enthusiastic? What then? Blackwater is a $$$corporation$$$. The President of the United States has no official powers over them.
Blackwater is a moneymaking enterprise. If the U.S. Department of Defense stops paying Blackwater, Prince has zero incentive to stay in Iraq. Unless, of course, he's interested in setting up shop as Grand Poobah of Mesopotamia all on his own with his gang of trigger-happy cowboys. Good luck with that. The Marines and the Army together have barely been able to keep a lid on the place.
August 25, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless they can get the Saudis to pay. Although I don't think they would like to interfere, the Bush/Chaney Mafia has an unusual amount of influence on them.
August 25, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone keeping an eye on the Spin Machine which is hard at work to keep the ignorant masses preoccupied? Somehow my gut feelings tells me that there may be an October Surprise (Marshal Law), in making. I do hope that I am wrong, but as I see it, that is the only thing that will keep many of the neocons including the FUHRER from facing the International Tribunal for crimes against humanity
August 25, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Bush and his toadies will be history on January 20th of next year. President Obama will decide when and how we leave Iraq. Later, I hope he also decides when, not if, Bush faces an international war crimes trial.
August 25, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is paying Blackwater to be in Iraq ... the US Government? If Prince is told 'your job is done, there will be no further pay' ... what incentive would Blackwater have for staying in Iraq?
August 26, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is getting evicted victory to McCain?
August 26, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
All President Obama got to do is terminate or not renew the Blackwater contract. If Blackwater would want to continue in Iraq, they would have to deal with the Iraqis directly. It would be their business and lookout.
August 26, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who pays them? Stop paying them. They'll come home.
August 26, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi does not respond to such requests. You know that.
She believes the war is an atrocity, but writing blank checks to fund it indefinitely is the essence of patriotism.
August 26, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is one more detail in this that I don't know the answer to but someone here may know. Do the contractors in Iraq have the typical U.S. passport that is commonly issued to any citizen or do they have official U.S. government passports? There is a difference. In a past life I had the latter and having that passport requires the person to whom it was issued to follow the directives of U.S. authorities. That is, if the U.S. government tells you to pack it up and go home that is what you are legally required to do. I don't know if that type of passport exists today or if they are issued to contractors any longer or not. It may have changed after four decades.
August 26, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it clear that the white house does not want to admit to an agreement on withdrawl until after the election. And then they will capitulate since they have no choice.
August 26, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush43/McInsane crowd are left with only "We gotta stay to drive up the price of oil," as the reason to stay.
Expect that the Executive Branch and the Branch that is Darth Cheny to blow town on January 19th and move to Dubai. I hear that there is a little plot of dirt out there that needs its brush cleared.
August 26, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq will coincide with the completion of the oil agreements
american oil companies are trying to put in place with the Iraq oil agency. The bush administration
has failed thus far.Now the Iraqi government and its people want us to leave.A sign that they want to be a democracy and exert their own rights as to their future. Isn't that why we are there? Or is it? what a contradiction for the bush people.
Ray Hunt jumped the gun and made his own deal after the military cleared a path for him.All this while our troops are still in harms way and dying. That deal should be rescinded as being
unpatriotic and arrogant and possibly treasonous.
You would think the bushies would have said something by now. Mr. Bush, why haven't you?
August 26, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense...the sides know exactly where they stand but Bush must keep up the "depends on conditions on the ground" ploy just to help McCain save face while underneath Maliki has already demanded the Obama plan knowing that Bush doesn't have much longer in office to try to set the agenda. Once the neocons are out of power Maliki no longer has to accept their blackmail or threats of reprisal for not keeping our bases and contractors in place.
Bush must agree just to extend the time we are allowed to keep troops there so it doesn't appear we are being forced to withdraw by the Iraqis themselves. There will always be "conditions on the ground" which neocons can use to excuse their continued presence and profiteering. Now that they got the oil agreements they are less likely to "create" new conditions on the ground but are only now referring to them just so McCain can say he supported the withdrawal.
It all assumes Americans are ill informed and too stupid to see through the rhetoric covering for "will you just get the hell out of our country already" coming from the majority of Iraqis.
August 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink