Bush And Maliki Sign Deal For Long-Term U.S. Presence
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home—how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.
The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an “enduring” relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.
“What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them—all these things are on the negotiating table,” said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush’s adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The proposal underlines how the United States and Iraq are exploring what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. It comes as a Democratic Congress—unsuccessfully, so far—prods Bush to withdraw troops faster than he wants.
Bush and al-Maliki signed the new U.S.-Iraq “declaration of principles” during a secure video conference Monday morning.
Al-Maliki, in a televised address, said his government would ask the United Nations to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time with its authorization to end in 2008.
The U.S.-Iraq agreement will replace the present U.N. mandate regulating the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Maliki said the agreement provides for U.S. support for the “democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers.”
It also would help the Iraqi government thwart any attempt to suspend or repeal a constitution drafted with U.S. help and adopted in a nationwide vote in 2005. That appeared to be a reference to any attempt to remove the government by violence or in a coup.
Al-Maliki said the renewal of the multinational forces’ mandate was conditional on the repeal of what he called restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty introduced in 1990 by the U.N. Security Council to punish Iraq for invading neighboring Kuwait.
The new agreement would not signal an end to the U.S. mission here. But it could change the rules under which U.S. soldiers operate and give the Iraqis a greater role in determining their mission.
Two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue say Iraq’s government will embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership. The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive, said U.S. military and diplomatic representatives appeared generally favorable, subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments.
Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran’s nuclear aspirations.
The framework Bush approved outlines broad principles, such as that both countries will support Iraq’s economic institutions, and help its government train Iraqi security forces to provide stability for all Iraqis. Lute said “all major national leaders of the existing Iraqi government” have committed to it.
“The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that’s very good news, but it won’t have to stand alone,” said Lute, who rarely holds televised briefings.
He said it is too soon to tell what the “shape and size” of the U.S. military commitment will look like, including military bases.
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long- term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I knew from the start that we’d be there pretty much forever. That’s a good thing; we need a permanent presence there as much as we do in Okinawa and South Korea, and far more than in Germany.
It works out great for both countries. Iraq doesn’t have to worry about any of it’s neighbors invading, and America has a big stick in the Mid East to keep the mullahs from regional hegemony. I’d hoped Afghanistan would be a useful base for that, but a country without a port can’t efficently project force, even if it’s only used as a stepping stone.
Plus, sad to say, while Iraq is getting better and better, Afghanistan is cirlcing the drain. Fuck NATO. EU wants to replace it with it’s own brand of alliance? Let them. Bunch of dead weight, exept for the Brits. We should form an Anglophone Alliance with the UK, Austrailia, and New Zealand. I’d add Canada, but we can always hire locals to bring us our coffee.
November 26th, 2007 at 3:01 pmThis deal pretty much proves it. like ticticboom says, like in Germany South Korea and also Kosovo and Japan, this war is over.
There will be no more, just our troops, our nations finest young men representing the US in our former combat zones. America likes to kick ass and then buy our enemies a beer!
Cheers to our long-term alliance with Iraq
November 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pmticticboom - I also like the Anglo Alliance Ideal. I would however include the Canadians, at least the grandchildren of the Canadians who fought and died with us in Normandy and the battle of the bulge! I would not write them off yet!
November 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm“To the victor belongs the spoils.” An investment of treasure and Blood now pays dividends for generations of Americans to come! We now have Iran surrounded and Iraq’s oil open to American Oil Cos. I guess Pres. Bush will now be hailed as a Great Leader.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pmThis deal isn’t worth the paper its written on if the Hildabeast gets elected. That bitch would fuck up a wet dream. Her foreign policy would be pre-9-11-lite and disasterous for the GWOT in general, and Iraq in particular.
I like the deal, Love the Anglo-alliance idea. But until Nov 2008, any deal with Iraq is premature IMHO.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pmI think summa youse bozos should catch up on who’s been on the pointy end of the stick in S. Afghanistan (where the Germans fear to tread). The Canadians have been pulling far more than their weight.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pmand its as fake as the western media always is.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:17 am