Bush's Secret Iraq Deal
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Despite opposition from both the Iraqi and American people, President Bush appears to be forging ahead on a multi-year security agreement with the Iraqi government that would lock in the occupation status quo.
A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment.
But there are signs of increasing resistance on the Iraqi side. At a congressional hearing yesterday, two members of the Iraqi parliament said Bush's terms would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate the violence there. They said any agreement should include a timetable for a quick departure of U.S. troops.
And in case the stakes weren't already high enough, the agreement is shaping up to be yet another proxy battle with Iran.
(Continued here.)
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Despite opposition from both the Iraqi and American people, President Bush appears to be forging ahead on a multi-year security agreement with the Iraqi government that would lock in the occupation status quo.
A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment.
But there are signs of increasing resistance on the Iraqi side. At a congressional hearing yesterday, two members of the Iraqi parliament said Bush's terms would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate the violence there. They said any agreement should include a timetable for a quick departure of U.S. troops.
And in case the stakes weren't already high enough, the agreement is shaping up to be yet another proxy battle with Iran.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
Did you catch this little tidbit :"Following the meetings it was determined that the Americans would work toward equipping Israel with F-35 fighter jets and possibly F-22 warplanes as well."
Dana Perino said at today's press briefing that she did not know anything about it.
Here's the question, why are the Israelis getting F-35 that the GAO thinks is a better plane, but the DOD 2009 budget includes F-22 not F-35 ?
Quick follow-up on my previous comment regarding the F-22 planes.
By now you've heard that Sec. of Defense has requested the resignations of Michael Wynne, the Air Force secretary, and the service's chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley. Amongst the reasons included that Gates differed with the Air Force leaders on strategy, particularly their insistence on continuing to purchase expensive F-22 fighter jets even though the defense secretary has said the planes are of no use for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Post a Comment
<< Home