United Liberty
Bush Agrees to Time-Table
Fri, 10/17/2008 - 6:21am | posted by Shana Kluck
The most important non-election, non-financial issue floating around Washington is one we don’t hear much about, but may actually have a greater impact on the nation’s foreign policy than who is elected President.
For well over a year now Iraq and the United States have been involved in negotiations over the role of American forces in the coming years. With the current UN-mandate set to expire at the end of this year, the Bush Admistration is in a sticky situation, and will be forced to cease combat operations if the mandate is not extended or a new Iraq-US security agreement is not reached and ratified by both governments.
What both sides want is not surprising. The Bush Administration wants absolute freedom to stay as long as needed with little to no strings attached, such as subjecting American forces to Iraqi law. The Iraqi government, still fragile and facing intense pressure from constituents, wants the US to draw down forces by the end of next year and subject American forces to Iraqi prosecution for any crimes committed. Both sides are at polar opposites and thus are having a difficult time finding a compromise that both can even begrudgingly support.
The current proposal calls for a timetable for withdraw that removes US combat forces out of Iraq by 2012, and will partially subject US forces to foreign Iraqi law. But even those concessions, once thought to be “a cold chance in hell” for the Bush Administration, do not seem to be enough to assure passage through the Iraqi legislative system. For those against the war this news is potentially nothing short of a monumentous victory, albeit by de facto.
You can read more about the proposed Iraq-US security agreement HERE.
I would approach this with a heavy dose of caution. First, even the “anti-war candidate” has made it clear that he wants to remove troops in Iraq so he can “redeploy” them to other places and that “no options are off the table” when it comes to Iran or Syria. Translation: We may end up taking kids from Iraq and using them in a “conflict” (we don’t really have wars anymore) in Iran, Syria, or use them for a “surge” in Afghanistan. Second, Bush has made it clear that we will pursue “terrorists” anywhere in the world and that our “national security” does not require permission from other countries to “defend” ourselves. Translation: Who really gives a crap what the Iraqi government wants or the UN wants. Third, Obama himself has said that he would chase “the terrorists” anywhere we have “actionable intelligence”. Translation: to save his political hide, he will send/keep troops wherever he has intelligence cover to send them.
Bottom line: The United States is still (although barely) the world’s hegemon and it will do whatever, whenever, however it wants, and it is run by politicians who care more about retaining power than the morality of their actions.
By the way, I realize there were a lot of words in quotations and in parentheticals. It may be annoying, but I think it shows just how 1984 we have become when we have to use such devises to show just how propagandized normal words have become.
Sorry, devices.
Epic comment, thank you.
Post new comment