When Is Withdrawal From Iraq Not Really Withdrawal From Iraq?

When is withdrawal from Iraq not withdrawal from Iraq?   The news seems to indicate that Bush and Maliki may be close to reaching an agreement on US troop withdrawal from Iraq.
 
However, nothing like a little cold water splashed on the face to understand all is not as it appears.
 
From Missing Links via Cursor.org: "Hani Khalaf, who will be the new head of the Arab League mission in Baghdad, is on a preliminary one-week exploratory visit. Among the interview remarks he made to AlHayat is the following relating to the Iraq-US negotiations for a security agreement. He said: 
'We are not yet aware of the nature of the agreement, and the Arab League hopes that the agreement will not affect the group of regional equilibriums or Arab interests or Arab national security by establishing permanent military bases. On the principle of brotherliness it is possible for the Iraqi government to make the Arab League familiar with the clauses [of the agreement] that are important for regional security, before signing of the agreement.'
"Suggesting first of all that he thinks an agreement will be signed, and secondly that the Arab League has no firm idea what is in it, and is concerned first and foremost with the issue of American military bases in Iraq and their impact on regional stability.
 
"There was an AP story today (Thursday July 7) that goes like this: Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.
 
"Which, when you compare it with the earlier accounts in AlHayat and AlSabaah suggests where one of the problems lies. The AlHayat reporter said the timetable is going to be for US troops to withdraw to bases by 2010, not to withdraw from Iraq by that date. This, in all probability is what is concealed in the expression "withdrawal of combat troops", and no doubt it is what is on the mind of the Arab League representative: Iraqi government agreement to continuing American military bases in Iraq, if they are anything but withdrawal-stations, will have regional-security implications, so the League would like the Maliki government to be more forthcoming about what it is about to sign.
 
"Americans should be worried too, because what the AP story reflects is an uncritical acceptance of the idea that "withdrawal" has its normal meaning, not the presumed Bush/Maliki meaning of "withdrawal" to bases.
 
"More broadly, the AP story also touts the idea, citing Iraqi sources, of complete withdrawal (not just "combat troops") by three years after the 2010 date. But what the AlHayat reporter said is that a process of negotiating complete withdrawal and/or a permanent treaty would begin in 2010, and what is currently at issue is the length of a guaranteed post-2010 period of continuing US troop presence, whether three years as the Iraqi side wants, or five years as the US side wants."
 
And from the BBC via Cursor: "Moqtada Sadr's spokesman has told the BBC that until the future status of US troops in Iraq is decided, no member of the Mehdi Army may carry weapons on the streets.

"At the moment the Iraqi government and the American administration are negotiating a status of forces agreement, which should determine the future role of US troops in this country.

"We have to see if the agreement will set a timetable for pulling out US troops from Iraq," Sheikh Obeidi, a spokesman for the Sadrist movement, told the BBC.

"[When a deal is reached] we will act accordingly. Resisting the occupation remains a legitimate right. However we will not resist the occupation until the completion of the agreement."

"It announced the division of the militia into two sections - a large group which "is going to transition in to a civilian movement dealing with religious, social and cultural affairs" and smaller "special companies" of fighters.

" 'Resisting the occupation will be the responsibility of a limited number of Mehdi Army members,' said Sheikh Obeidi, Mr Sadr's spokesman.

" 'They will be named secretly by religious leaders in the Mehdi Army.'

"According to close observers of Iraq like the American academic, Anthony Cordesman, this is "worrisome because the restructuring mirrors the structure of Iranian-sponsoredHezbollah [in Lebanon]".

"Ending the US occupation has been a consistent demand of the group and it is a call that is likely to be heard in campaigning for the key provincial elections that are due to be held later this year."

The actual wording of the agreement, should it remain open to interpretation about withdrawal, could be another can or worms, with possible all bets off by Moqtada Sadr and his followers. 

Posted by Kaz at 8/8/2008 3:36 PM
Categories: Bush, Iraq
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.