New Agreement Being Negotiated with Iraqis
The breaking story within the last week or so about Iraq is the one about the negotiations to get an agreement between the US and the Iraqis about American forces and contractors' role in Iraq.
All this is precipitated by the fact the UN Resolution authorizing US action in Iraq expires at the end of this year. What a coincidence that the Resolution expires at the same time as President Bush's term of office. One wonders if this is somehow deliberate. This also emphasizes again that we have been in this conflict longer than it took to defeat our enemies in WWII. That leads to the counterpoint of our forces occupying Germany and Japan for years after the end of armed hostilities.
At any rate, these facts are interesting given the rhetoric in the Republican debate about "staying until we win". Especially when you combine those facts with Gen McCaffrey's assessment that we cannot sustain the pace with what we have now. Did you hear the question based on Gen McCaffrey's assessment last night during the debate? Didn't you feel smarter than the average bear because you knew about the report from reading this blog? Weren't you disturbed by the delusional response to the question?
At any rate, here are two articles discussing the negotiations.
The first is from Richard Engel reporting for NBC/MSNBC. Here is the link.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/24/605850.aspx
The second is from today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
All this is precipitated by the fact the UN Resolution authorizing US action in Iraq expires at the end of this year. What a coincidence that the Resolution expires at the same time as President Bush's term of office. One wonders if this is somehow deliberate. This also emphasizes again that we have been in this conflict longer than it took to defeat our enemies in WWII. That leads to the counterpoint of our forces occupying Germany and Japan for years after the end of armed hostilities.
At any rate, these facts are interesting given the rhetoric in the Republican debate about "staying until we win". Especially when you combine those facts with Gen McCaffrey's assessment that we cannot sustain the pace with what we have now. Did you hear the question based on Gen McCaffrey's assessment last night during the debate? Didn't you feel smarter than the average bear because you knew about the report from reading this blog? Weren't you disturbed by the delusional response to the question?
At any rate, here are two articles discussing the negotiations.
The first is from Richard Engel reporting for NBC/MSNBC. Here is the link.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/24/605850.aspx
The second is from today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
On New Agreement Being Negotiated with Iraqis.
There are many angles which could be pursued on this subject. This blog goes to what it interprets as delusional responses during a Republican Presidential debate. I have a different take.
If the worldview is that the glass is half full rather than half empty, a half full interpretation could be very positive. We could talk about the significant progress in Iraq, we could talk about how the executive and legislative branches worked together to define the criteria to make it a status of force agreement rather than a treaty, we could talk about progress working with the Iraqi government moving toward a more normalized relationship, and we could conclude that this agreement will ease the transition for the new administration.
We have heard from the Democrat presidential candidates that the legislative branch should have an approval right. If you read the articles closely and with an open mind, you will see that the administration had a starting position, there was input from the legislative branch, and modifications were made that rendered it acceptable to both sides. Part of this negotiation was to avoid level of force criteria, which would have moved it to a treaty, and that would need Senate approval. Look it up.
What a concept – Working together to resolve differences and achieving something both sides can live with.
How would this agreement help the new administration? They will have to deal responsibly with the reality of Iraq, whether they like it or not. Without an agreement on these issues, there is the potential for chaos and misunderstanding all around. With an agreement, there will be a known starting point for the new administration, one less thing to worry about right away. Will they be stuck with it forever? No way. If they want, they can negotiate new terms, to reflect their objectives and implement their foreign policy.
To my liberal friends who have low regard for George Bush and his administration, I know it may be hard for you to be objective and to give credit to the administration.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Jim,
Thanks for your input, as always.
I'm guilty here of mixing my metaphors, or maybe my subject matter. I was trying to give a preview of one of the topics I wanted to write about next and muddied that with the new agreement articles.
The articles are fairly balanced. They do provide the two viewpoints. One is that we need a new agreement to replace the expiring UN Resolution that lets us be in Iraq. The other concern is that in negotiating that agreement our hands not be tied or our commitment be something we cannot live with once George Bush is no longer President. Given Bush's history of embracing the concept of the Unitary Executive theory, this is a legitimate concern.
As far as a "delusional" response, I'll make that part of my next entry.
Reply to this