PDA

View Full Version : Talks Are Set on Ending Battle of Iraq


AYFR
11-27-2007, 06:30 PM
Quiet Announcement Signals Start of U.S., Iraq Parley

By NICHOLAS WAPSHOTT
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 27, 2007 posted 11/26/07 11:25 pm


And so the Battle of Iraq is to be brought to an end, in T.S. Eliot's phrase, "not with a bang but a whimper."

With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., President Bush's war tsar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.

The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.

"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," General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.

Bringing the war to a close by the end of 2008 will ensure that the next president will face a fait accompli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.

Like the sharp reduction in casualties in Iraq since the full implementation of the "surge" in fighting forces, the agreement with Iraq will help Republican presidential candidates who have backed Mr. Bush's war strategy.

The agreement also will strengthen those more moderate Democratic candidates, such as Senators Clinton and Obama, who have resisted the siren voices on the left of the Democratic Party demanding a faster and total withdrawal from Iraq.

Mr. Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq agreed a Declaration of Principles in a teleconference yesterday, a "nonbinding pact" that set forth a "common sheet of music with which to begin the negotiations," to be completed by July 2008, which would end with "an enduring relationship based on mutual interests," General Lute said.

The Security Council's current Iraqi mandate runs out at the end of next month, and the Iraqi government would like it to run one final year before the lifting of all restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty, which were imposed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait leading to the Gulf War in 1990.

America and Iraq will decide on a "strategic framework agreement," a bilateral arrangement for a continuing American presence in the country, including the number of American troops to remain as a bulwark against political instability and a safeguard against continuing Al Qaeda attacks.

"The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said. It is already planned that 20,000 American troops will leave Iraq by July 2008.
General Lute said he considers the deal essential to bolster pro-Western elements in the Iraq government.

"From the Iraqi side, the interest that they tend to talk about is that a long-term relationship with us, where we are a reliable, enduring partner with Iraq, will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bet in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership of the United States," he said.

"To the extent it doesn't cause sectarian groups to have to hedge their bet independently, we're confident that this will actually contribute to reconciliation in the long run," he said.

The agreement in principle "signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security," the general said.

America is seeking to put its future relationship with the Iraqi government on the same bilateral basis as that of other allies in the region, with agreements on political, economic, and security measures, though the general was at pains to point out that the deal, to be negotiated by the State Department, is unrelated to the wider debate about peace in the Middle East.

"It's not linked in any meaningful way that I can think of to what's going on in Annapolis," he said.

Nor will the finished agreement amount to a treaty, which would have to face approval by Congress. General Lute played down the status of the negotiations while stressing that they are essential to allow Iraq and America to resume normal relations.

"We have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty," he said. "We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress."
http://www.nysun.com/article/67000

AYFR
11-28-2007, 06:16 AM
No comments.

They are talking about bring the troops home and no one has anything to say.
I think that this is great.

AYFR
11-28-2007, 11:37 AM
I cannot believe that people are ignoring this.
They are talking about ending the war and no one cares.

This is a great start to ending this I for one am estatic.

It would be great for our troops to come home and for us to have an ally over in the ME.

Cookie Parker
11-28-2007, 11:40 AM
It's a ruse and a lie....there will always be soldiers in the Middle East..and Bush will just move them to Dubai to watch over Halliburton and Cheney...no troops will be home...mark my word...not while bush and Cheney are in office...

AYFR
11-28-2007, 11:41 AM
This will happen and they did not say ALL troops will come home (even Hillary has stated that she will leave troops pver there.)

Cookie Parker
11-28-2007, 11:43 AM
This will happen and they did not say ALL troops will come home (even Hillary has stated that she will leave troops pver there.)

So, I say they will not...Hillary is not incharge anymore so than I am....bush has a history of lying...I think learning from history is important....he will leave them there..he still has a year to illegally invade Iran...

issac the dragon
11-28-2007, 08:17 PM
If this is the way the war ends, it is as disgusting as the way it began. Tens of thousands dead, their entire economy and infrastructure broken, trillions spent, and we just walk away.

The war was based on a lie, and will be ended on a lie. My only concern is will the troops remaining continue to kill innocent civilians. Will we truly give the country back to the Iraqis? And that will mean when we kill people, we will have to justify that to the elected government of Iraq.

If we remain and have the right to kill people at will, there wiil be no end to the war we are making upon the Iraqi people.

crazierthanever
11-28-2007, 09:31 PM
Have you seen pictures or read articles about the 'embassy' the US is building in Iraq? That doesn't make it look like Dubya has any intention of really leaving Iraq. Besides, what about all that oil? You seriously think his big oil buddies are going to leave THAT to the Iraqis? Nah.

AYFR
11-28-2007, 09:34 PM
This is so funny. First you want the troops out of Iraq then you gripe when there is something tha tmight achieve that objective.

What do you want? For us to stay or for us to leave?

toxic
11-29-2007, 11:09 AM
This is so funny. First you want the troops out of Iraq then you gripe when there is something that might achieve that objective.

What do you want? For us to stay or for us to leave?

Bush isn't getting the troops out, he is making a treaty to leave them there for 50 years!!!

Qoute from your article:
"... The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty. ..."

If you consider leaving 50,000 troop in Iraq for the next 50 years to put down popular coups against our puppet government, then you are nuts.

At our current rate, that will cost $25 Billion per year. Which will cost the typical household $400/year. I have much better things to spend $400/year on.

Thoughtful people have not been using our military presence in South Korea, Germany, Japan, ... for the last 50 years as a model, instead they have been saying GET THE FUCK OUT OF THOSE COUNTRIES.

AYFR
11-29-2007, 11:18 AM
50,000 is a lot less then 164,000.
Even the Democratic candidates say they will keep about 50,000 troops there.

toxic
11-29-2007, 11:39 AM
50,000 is a lot less then 164,000.
Even the Democratic candidates say they will keep about 50,000 troops there.

So is 163,000, but none are needed to defend the USA.

You mean our Affirmative Action symbols?

Trueblue
11-29-2007, 05:35 PM
Bush isn't getting the troops out, he is making a treaty to leave them there for 50 years!!!

Qoute from your article:
"... The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty. ..."

If you consider leaving 50,000 troop in Iraq for the next 50 years to put down popular coups against our puppet government, then you are nuts.

At our current rate, that will cost $25 Billion per year. Which will cost the typical household $400/year. I have much better things to spend $400/year on.

Thoughtful people have not been using our military presence in South Korea, Germany, Japan, ... for the last 50 years as a model, instead they have been saying GET THE FUCK OUT OF THOSE COUNTRIES.

Yes!!!

Matt
11-29-2007, 09:44 PM
Quiet Announcement Signals Start of U.S., Iraq Parley

By NICHOLAS WAPSHOTT
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 27, 2007 posted 11/26/07 11:25 pm


And so the Battle of Iraq is to be brought to an end, in T.S. Eliot's phrase, "not with a bang but a whimper."

With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., President Bush's war tsar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.

The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.

"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," General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.

Bringing the war to a close by the end of 2008 will ensure that the next president will face a fait accompli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.

Like the sharp reduction in casualties in Iraq since the full implementation of the "surge" in fighting forces, the agreement with Iraq will help Republican presidential candidates who have backed Mr. Bush's war strategy.

The agreement also will strengthen those more moderate Democratic candidates, such as Senators Clinton and Obama, who have resisted the siren voices on the left of the Democratic Party demanding a faster and total withdrawal from Iraq.

Mr. Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq agreed a Declaration of Principles in a teleconference yesterday, a "nonbinding pact" that set forth a "common sheet of music with which to begin the negotiations," to be completed by July 2008, which would end with "an enduring relationship based on mutual interests," General Lute said.

The Security Council's current Iraqi mandate runs out at the end of next month, and the Iraqi government would like it to run one final year before the lifting of all restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty, which were imposed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait leading to the Gulf War in 1990.

America and Iraq will decide on a "strategic framework agreement," a bilateral arrangement for a continuing American presence in the country, including the number of American troops to remain as a bulwark against political instability and a safeguard against continuing Al Qaeda attacks.

"The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said. It is already planned that 20,000 American troops will leave Iraq by July 2008.
General Lute said he considers the deal essential to bolster pro-Western elements in the Iraq government.

"From the Iraqi side, the interest that they tend to talk about is that a long-term relationship with us, where we are a reliable, enduring partner with Iraq, will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bet in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership of the United States," he said.

"To the extent it doesn't cause sectarian groups to have to hedge their bet independently, we're confident that this will actually contribute to reconciliation in the long run," he said.

The agreement in principle "signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security," the general said.

America is seeking to put its future relationship with the Iraqi government on the same bilateral basis as that of other allies in the region, with agreements on political, economic, and security measures, though the general was at pains to point out that the deal, to be negotiated by the State Department, is unrelated to the wider debate about peace in the Middle East.

"It's not linked in any meaningful way that I can think of to what's going on in Annapolis," he said.

Nor will the finished agreement amount to a treaty, which would have to face approval by Congress. General Lute played down the status of the negotiations while stressing that they are essential to allow Iraq and America to resume normal relations.

"We have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty," he said. "We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress."
http://www.nysun.com/article/67000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Perhaps the lack of excited response to this article lies in its ambiguity. Not only that but the fact that Bush has talked loud and often about not setting a date for bringing the soldiers home ~ and yet Gen. Lute appears to be doing just that.
It makes me wonder if this is not another of Bush's attempts to have it both ways.
If things go well he will refer to this. If they do not he will deny that it was ever said.
I think many of us have learned to take nothing seriously that comes from the mouth of Bush or his spokespersons. :sad

Saguaro
11-29-2007, 09:47 PM
Bush's troop"withdrawal "coincides with the troops already scheculed to come home, Bush didn't lie about it, they will be coming home, but for how long ?

quiet man
11-29-2007, 11:14 PM
leaving 50,000 trops there is still way to many to leave to become targets.

Oceanbreeze
11-30-2007, 10:24 AM
Bush's troop"withdrawal "coincides with the troops already scheculed to come home, Bush didn't lie about it, they will be coming home, but for how long ?

Bingo-he does it every year. It's nervewrecking for the military families.