US, Iraq Long-Term Security Deal Abandoned

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. and Iraq have abandoned attempts to forge a long-term security agreement. The focus is now on a "bridge document" that would provide for basic military operations after the UN mandate expires at the end of this year, and it would fall to the next administration to deal with any extended security agreement:

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.

In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year.

The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

Although President Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one U.S. official close to the negotiations. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing. They need something like this in there. . . . Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever."

The increasing need for more troops in Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban may force the Bush Administration to accelerate the rate of troop withdrawal from Iraq:

The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there.

More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month...

...The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially other missions.

Comments

[Axolotl]

Bush and McCain's surge has turned into reflux. Watch the explosive spray while the esophogus dissolves with the acid of perfidious hegemony gone bad. McCain = continuous war and no sovereignty for Iraq.

[Robertx5]

I love this statement from the piece
' The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord --- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task.'
Let's get real here. The U.S. government (not just the present administration) intends to stay in Iraq for many years. Promises of complete troop withdrawal are mainly a sop to keep public opinion quiescent back in the U.S.A.
Iraq we are often told is now a sovereign state. If the U.S. wants to keep forces there, the Iraqi's can lay out any terms they wish, and no blame should be apportioned to them if they are too onerous or restrictive for the U.S. to accept.

[moreupnorth]

Of course this deal fell through. The only people it had any hope of making feel secure were American politicians and Oil companies.

And with John McCain being quoted in the press saying "we need to turn the IRAQI GOVERNMENT over to the IRAQI PEOPLE" I am 100% sure the Iraqi poeple don't feel very secure knowing that a foriegn country controls it's government. I am also 100% sure the Iraqi government does not feel very secure having someone publically announce that they are under the control of a foriegn government as well.

How many years and times does someone need to be told or shown proof that "your presence makes us insecure" before Johnny Nash appears singing "I can see clearly now"

You know that they make a no-fog solution to keep those rose colored glass from foggining up too!

[tyrodin]

Even though Barack and most Democrats have been saying for years that we need to withdraw from Iraq and reinforce Afghanistan, the neo-cons will spin it. They will claim victory in Iraq because violence is down, and then redeploy some of the troops to Afghanistan. They already have General "Betray us" singing their song on the Sunday morning political shows. Yet just a few months ago when Obama mentioned redeploying our troops, he was called a cut-and-runner, an appeaser, and he was just like Neville Chamberlain. Why aren't the Republicans now saying this about Patraeus? Ha ha, McCain will get up on the stump and tell us how well Bush"s plan worked and he will ensure that the US is going to stay the course.

[flyfysher]

I'm not a strong Obama supporter but his stated position on Iraq in the New York Times is one which I can support. Obama has done a great job of articulating his plan for Iraq and distinguishing his stance for it from GWB's and McCain's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?hp

[MACS]

.
The Surge is Working.
The Surge is Working.

ROFLMAO
.

[notyouraveragebear]

Maybe the 'long term security agreement' was dropped because no one feels secure.

[Danny]

The Iraqi government has finally realized it has ... hmm ... sovereignty over its territory, and can politely ask the occupiers to leave. Will they?

[darthmaul]

Mission accomplished!

[bluesnot]

Tom Hayden thinks it's a big election year show for both the Iraqi government and the Republicans:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/pentagon-fighting-off-pea_b_112336.html

[collprof]

But where is the victory that Bush, Cheney, and McCain stated we would have? Where are all the flowers that would be hailing us a liberators?

Same as when the Russians left Afghan...those flowers are in the shape of IED's killing our young soldiers in a war that never should have taken place. And now we go back into Afghan and finish what we should have finished in 2003. 5 years of nation building and we get thrown out.

[IowaKid]

Where is the oil that was suppose to pay for this war?

[CharlieMarlowe]

What if the Iraqi government made it a law that no US company can drill for oil or benefit from Iraqi oil in any way? How long would the US remain in Iraq then?

[darthmaul]

It's in the ground in Iraq. I'm sure that the Iraqi's will provide favorable terms to the Chinese for oil concessions.

[knighthowl]

I always wondered what made those simpletons think we could just take another country's oil.

[kasinca]

When you try to illegally take something that is not yours, (us and their oil) things will have a repercussion at some point in time. We will pay for the crimes of the thugs in this administration for a long, long, time.

[leduck]

so the shiits wanted control of the country and are very apreciative
but they don't want us stealing their oil

makes sense

[jayjaga]

With the Iraqi government and people strongly united and telling the US to end the current occupation of their country, does Obama still remain a naivete as trumpeted by Mcbush and his gang?

The Iraqis indeed requested for a timetable for the troop withrawal, does this constitute a surrender according to McBush?

Indeed, the chickens have come home to roost.

With all these happenings unfolding, who has a better grasp of foreign policy and commander in chief experience? Is it Obama or McBush? The answer is obvious. LOL.

[marignymitch]

Luckily we stole their oil first!

[racom]

Last I heard the oil was still in the ground and, despite any oil agreements signed, it ain't over yet. The Iraqis are far too smart to kill each other over the oil and then watch as the US steals it!

[Podewumun]

But now we have to make a 'clean getaway', and that may pose a bit of a problem.