US considering withdrawal timetable

**Ironduke** · 17 Oct 08,, 08:51

The article doesn't explicitly mention a timetable, but I think it seems apparent. Does a timetable pose a risk to our effort to stabilize the country, or would it help the Iraqis re-double their efforts and provide stability and security?

US considering Iraq security deal

The US says it is considering a draft agreement with Iraq on the role of its troops there after the UN mandate for their presence expires later this year.

Details have not been released, but officials say it would see US combat forces withdrawn from Iraqi towns and cities by the middle of 2009.

The troops would withdraw completely from Iraq by the end of 2011, they add.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates has begun briefing key members of Congress, although their approval is not needed.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is also said to be pressing Iraqi leaders to accept the deal.

On Wednesday, the Iraqi government said it was considering the draft because a compromise had been reached on the issue of immunity for US military personnel and contractors.

Any deal must be approved by the Iraqi cabinet, the three-man Presidency Council, and critically, by the Council of Representatives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7675171.stm

**dave lukins** · 17 Oct 08,, 09:46

Could the recent "economic crash" be a way out?

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...851258,00.html

**Ray** · 17 Oct 08,, 10:03

After so much of turmoil and sacrifice there is no way hoiw the US will withdraw.

They will only drawdown.

They did not build the largest base for nothing!!

**diago** · 17 Oct 08,, 16:52

Originally Posted by Ray

After so much of turmoil and sacrifice there is no way hoiw the US will withdraw.

They will only drawdown.

They did not build the largest base for nothing!!

Sir,

I heard that one of the resons,which led to war on iraq was,"rich oil deposits of iraq and huge contracts which the US companies would get,after the war".

Did US achived something or not?

S2 · 17 Oct 08,, 17:14

Check Iraqi cash reserves.

The U.S. gov't has not received one barrel of oil as largesse. Not one.

Contracts are open bids subject to the whims of the Iraqi gov't.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 17 Oct 08,, 17:17

S-2, whats that old saying ...............want to get ahead, go to war and lose

**diago** · 17 Oct 08,, 17:23

Originally Posted by S-2

Check Iraqi cash reserves.

The U.S. gov't has not received one barrel of oil as largesse. Not one.

Contracts are open bids subject to the whims of the Iraqi gov't.

sir,but US has full control over Iraq,who would stop it?

Doesn't US and its allies having an edge for contracts,over other countries.

**diago** · 17 Oct 08,, 17:30

US has spent huge amount of money in the war and suffered a lot of casualities n all.US has given freedom to Iraq.Can't it use iraqi oil to cover up its loses,even if its not making extra money?

**Dreadnought** · 17 Oct 08,, 17:31

Originally Posted by diago

sir,but US has full control over Iraq,who would stop it?

Doesn't US and its allies having an edge for contracts,over other countries.

Even if it did they deserve it since it was the Allied troops that liberated Iraq while the other countries would do absolutely nothing. It wont ever match the cost in blood spent liberating Iraq but it would be a good starting place.

**Officer of Engineers** · 17 Oct 08,, 17:34

Originally Posted by diago

Did US achived something or not?

Hope.

S2 · 17 Oct 08,, 18:00

Not to blame you personally but, like too many others globally, your assumptions of our motivations- created or reinforced by the spurious "analyses" of too many with their own narrow and hidden agendas, has chosen to ignore some very base facts.

That's too bad that truth faces some towering but flawed assumptions which are rather easily uncovered for those that wish it.

**Shek** · 17 Oct 08,, 19:41

Originally Posted by diago

sir,but US has full control over Iraq,who would stop it?

Doesn't US and its allies having an edge for contracts,over other countries.

No. Look who's already won contracts. The US has won some, but lost many others.

**Ray** · 18 Oct 08,, 05:32

Originally Posted by diago

Sir,

Did US achived something or not?

To my way of looking at it, the US did achieve many a strategic goal.

1. They are positioned right in the Centre of the Middle East. Hence, can react to any adverse situation in the Middle East with alacrity.

2. They can influence the Iraqi govt over its oil production and the price and thus crack open the OPEC cartel.

3. They have a listening post into the Central Asian Republic.

4. By their presence, they offset the building of a Shia Club of nations, led by Iran.

5. The US, being in Iraq, are in a position to strike Iran at will, once the troop situation improves.

6. By having an influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US practically encircles Iran.

I am sure there are many more advantages that have accrued.

**Herodotus** · 20 Oct 08,, 11:58

Originally Posted by Ray

To my way of looking at it, the US did achieve many a strategic goal.

1. They are positioned right in the Centre of the Middle East. Hence, can react to any adverse situation in the Middle East with alacrity.

Yes, but the presence of US troops could also more likely create an adverse situation. All it would take is a cross-border raid, or even an accidental shooting at the border to escalate a tense situation with Iran/Syria.

2. They can influence the Iraqi govt over its oil production and the price and thus crack open the OPEC cartel.

How can they do this? Is the US going to blackmail the Iraqis? Are we going to say they can't sell to the Chinese? Also price controls don't really work so American influence on price is negligible.

3. They have a listening post into the Central Asian Republic.

And Afghanistan isn't a listening post in Central Asia?

4. By their presence, they offset the building of a Shia Club of nations, led by Iran.

Well the Iranian backed militas are sort of the ones in power in Iraq, right now. They may exercise greater autonomy from the US.

5. The US, being in Iraq, are in a position to strike Iran at will, once the troop situation improves.

:Shudder: That's real reassuring...of course we could have also struck Iran from Afghanistan and Turkey...just saying.

6. By having an influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US practically encircles Iran.

Well an encircled country could become insecure and overreact to the situation (I hate to invoke Nazi Germany, but Russia's aggression against Georgia is also an example of this- preemptively).

I am sure there are many more advantages that have accrued.

Debatable if those are advantages or not. If this war were about controlling resources, like oil, then it would have made more sense from a strategic viewpoint. But the administration went at this so haphazardly they settled on "WMD" and really democracy promotion, which is pie in the sky thinking and too Jacobin for my tastes, personally.

Now the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of lives so that now a Shiite majority nation-state can oppose Israel instead of a Sunni majority one...

We will be out before 2012, the Iraqis will demand it, and Obama will accede to their demand. The question then becomes will they ally with Iran, or not?

**Ironduke** · 21 Oct 08,, 20:15

Iraq seeking changes to US deal

Iraq's cabinet is demanding changes to a draft agreement with Washington that would allow US forces to stay until 2011, a government spokesman has said.

"The cabinet have agreed that necessary amendments to the pact could make it nationally accepted," Ali Dabbagh said, without specifying the changes.

The draft was presented last week after months of painstaking US-Iraq talks.

US officials have not said if they are willing to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

The draft agreement calls for a drawdown of US combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and includes US concessions on immunity for US troops who break Iraqi law.

The US and Iraqi governments had previously said the pact was final and could not be amended - only accepted or rejected by the Iraqi parliament.

But Mr Dabbagh said ministers would meet over the coming days to "give their opinions and consult and provide the amendments suggested" before submitting the amended draft to the US negotiating team.

Mr Dabbagh issued a statement asking "everyone to view the agreement objectively and responsibly and to consider the public interest".

The cabinet must approve the draft before it can be sent to parliament for a vote.

Sticking point

Apart from the two main Kurdish parties, political leaders have so far withheld their support for the deal.

The draft has also been strongly opposed by the faction led by radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, who brought thousands of supporters on to the streets of Baghdad on Saturday in protest.

Immunity for US military personnel and contractors is thought to be one of the key sticking points, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from Baghdad.

The pact is said to grant Iraqi judicial authorities limited ability to try US troops and contractors for major crimes committed off-duty or off-base - and only then if a joint US-Iraqi committee agrees.

Earlier on Tuesday, the US military chief in Iraq, Adm Michael Mullen, warned that Iraq risked security losses of "significant consequence" unless it approved the deal.

Adm Mullen told AFP that Iraqi forces would "not be ready to provide for their security" before the expiration of the current UN mandate for US-led coalition forces at the end of this year.

If a deal is not reached by that point, there will be no legal basis for the US-led mission to remain in Iraq.

"It's time for the Iraqis to make a decision," Adm Mullen said.

About 144,000 of the 152,000 foreign troops deployed in Iraq are US military personnel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7682213.stm