Extract from a piece I did in the National this week on the floundering effort to negotiate a U.S.-Iraq security deal to replace the current UN Resolution that expires in December:
The problem, for the US and for those Iraqi political factions most dependent on its presence, is that the vast majority of Iraqis oppose a long-term US presence, which to them feels like an occupation. The demand for the US to agree to a departure date enjoys overwhelming support – and public opinion is clearly reflected in the response of Iraqi parliamentarians to the security deal with Washington.
What the Bush administration is encountering here is the unkind reality of just how few friends America really has in Iraq. Sure, it has an alliance with the government of Mr Maliki, the prime minister, and with its largest party, the Supreme Islamic Council. And it also has cordial relations with some of the Sunni nationalist parties and, of course, with the Kurds.
But none of these groups shares the US agenda for Iraq. Instead, each has responded to the US presence as an opportunity to pursue its own ends. Each has engaged in tactical alliances with Washington in the hope of using US power against its foes in the intra-Iraqi power game.
To read the whole thing, click here.
Obama could nip this thing in the bud by stating very clearly that, based on the Bush precedents of walking away from treaties and agreements, any agreement Bush signs is only good until 19 January 2009. After Obama is President, everything will be re-negotiated. If Obama did this the agreement negotiations would quickly die along with the idea of the US staying very long after 20 January 2009.
Sure, Bush and McCain would huff and puff, but all Obama would have to say is let the American people decide. If they want to honor the agreement and stay in Iraq indefinitely, then vote for McCain. If the American people don’t like the agreement and want to be out of Iraq then elect Obama. Given the current mood in the US, Obama would win in a landslide, and I think McCain is beginning to figure this out.
I think Obama should hit McCain squarely in the face with Iraq. McCain will be knocked senseless.
@Spyguy
Your comment makes one think democracy works. As if it is possible to rely on the democratic institutions. It’s going to be quite a recession for the next President and the people. The most peace seeking president is not going to be able to dismantle the likes of Halliburton. As neocons become a pariah worldwide, there are going to be increasing calls for their blood (figuratively speaking).
Re: the Iraq security agreement, it feels like Tehran said no.
Condi and other state department officials are stressing it will be no threat to Iran. Which is a rather bold statement in acknowledging Iran’s power.
A rescue team would be hard pressed to advise the White House what they should do. Backtracking the whole war effort is the only option.
Now we can all wait see what disasters the current US leadership can still do. Aren’t they an immediate threat to everyone?
And with the US having less credibility every day, it probably couldn’t cope with any unforeseen demands (Like Katrina or a military need).
The Bush policy is such a disaster, no country in the world would want US troops, although the Iraqis must really hate them.
Even Sistani said no to the agreement.
Tehran must really not like it.
A very interesting statement made by one of Sistani’s representatives is reported here:
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look/english/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=82368&NrIssue=2&NrSection=1
Basically he is telling the Iraqi gov’t and people to dismiss the election talk about leaving Iraq because the US doesn’t really want to leave. He says the gov’t can take its time to negotiate an agreement with the US on terms that it can live with. The election talk has to do with the current presidentially elections in the US.
So I would take away from this a few points. (1) Bush is probably using the prospect of Obama being next President to pressure the Iraqis to quickly sign a deal on his terms. (2) Sistani doesn’t really want the US to leave. (3) His reading of US intentions is that they see it as in their interest to stay, and that the US will want to stay regardless of who is elected.
Thanks for the post, I’ll keep checking back for more stuff, bookmarked!
I agree with you, Tony karon.
walmart Black Friday Online Deals 2011
Hi there colleagues, its great article regarding tutoringand entirely explained, keep it up all the time.|