Secret US Plan Sets No Time Limit For US Presence In Iraq

The Guardian (U.K.)   |  Seumas Milne   |   April 7, 2008 09:56 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Read the whole story here.

 

Comments
161
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

I'm sorry, but somebody thought this was a secret? LOL!
as inept as these morons in the Cheney Administration are, the prospect of forever war only makes them lick their sweaty jowls in eager anticipation at the profits to be made in perpetually fighting a battle that will never be completely extinguished. why stop the fun because a few clumsy National Guardsmen get waxed? Can you say "acceptable losses?" how about "expendable?" or is the term "cannon fodder" more appropriate?? the Dickster's comment is extremely telling: "they volunteered."
think him, George, Condi, Betrayus, or the rest of these maggots lose a minute's sleep over the men and women they've sent to certain doom? Their callouses have callouses!
that's why they set it up this way. not having an exit strategy should have been a clue...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 04/08/2008

SmackwaterJack doesn't get to 4, being Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie, or it's all over.

When the Dems arrive in '09 God willing, who cares about what this BushCo group puts together... It can't be a treaty. Even treaties are broken. We need to pack our bags, and get back to the business of this plundered and ravaged country!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 04/08/2008


I read this as another step towards war with Iran

rather than justifying the status quo within Iraq.

Darth has promised the Likudists and Saudis

we will destroy Iran's energy capabilities and

diminish Iran's influence in the Middle East.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 04/08/2008

Shhhhhhhh, it's a secret.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 04/08/2008

What is so secret?!!
They published the goals of a "New Roman Empire" very clearly with the PNAC report on a vision of the future without the USSR long ago.
Now we have fools who accept the idea that "WE" as a country have the "Right" nay...the "Obligation" to install some government sympathetic to the idea that international oil corporations should take 80% of the petro revenues and leave 20% to the puppet government to maintain control of their own impoverished masses. Of course, this ignores the fact that the war was based on lies and they let Bin Laden escape.
It you do not support the PNAC agenda or the idea that every Muslim is a potential threat to moronic cowards living on the other side of the planet, you become an object of scorn.
At the Nuremburg trials the Nazis explained this is how they were able to crush the intellectuals as traitors and unpatriotic. This time the Neo-nazis do not represent our national interest but some totalitarian international capitalist dream. The stupid and intellectually lazy feel comfortable hiding their fear with bravado against reason.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 AM on 04/08/2008

Secret my arse, only for those that were like, not paying attention, gullible, and have blind faith, Or those that are completely apathetic to the world around them.

1) Afganistan was part one.

2) Iraq was part two.

3) Iran is part three.

And that's no secret.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 04/08/2008

As long as there is oil to be pumped, our soldiers will be there to die for it. Make no mistake about that!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 04/08/2008

No surprise here. For anyone who has followed this fiasco it was obvious that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney never planned for us to leave.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 AM on 04/08/2008

Doesn't it bother anyone that "Secret" and "Confidential" documents are being leaked to the press? I find it amazing that many on this post where all up in arms when the (not so) "secert agent" was outed and now fall silent about this.

When secerts get leaked bad things happen for all involved and it hurts my heart when I see crap like this. I weep for the future of this nation if our secerts are going to be used for politics and political gain.

This is not a left, right, democrat or republican thing. It is an American thing.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 AM on 04/08/2008

It depends what the secrets are ... Plame was an example of an individual outed for Political purposes; ending the work she performed for the US Government; ending her career; and putting an unknown number of foreign assets associated with her mission at risk for imprisonment or death.

That is completely different than a General Pentagon plan aimed at thwarting the will of the American people, who are the Pentagon's Employers.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 04/08/2008

Valery Plame is a person not a piece of paper. Rove, Buch, and Cheny probably got people killed for outing her operation. No such thing happened here. You are an idiot.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 04/08/2008

And what you say is as I would expect from someone like you. IF Plames status as a "secert agent" were compromised then how come no one was proscuted for it? And don't give me the Bush cover up crap either. The dems were all over it and if they had even sensed that Bush, Rove, Cheney were even remotely involved it would have been as sharks to blood.

You are a fool to think that when secrets are leaked that it does not have an effect on everyone in this country.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 04/08/2008

No doubt leaking state secrets is a serious issue, but you realy need to step back and take all of this in context; we are now living in a situation in this country where the Dept. of Justice has been subverted from it's primary chartered function to a political operative branch, and the DoS, DoD & CIA are all unethically compromised for political purposes as well.

The Plame situation was a serious breach. If you insist on claiming the Plame case was less than a serious breach then you are willfully ignorant, or obtusely avoiding the facts.

I seriously doubt the documents in question are classified, as they don't contain any information that isn't common knowledge [if limited to the information included in this article] .

The only people who will feel impinged upon by this--given that fact--will be individuals looking for something to cry foul about.

Denial of the politicization of these branches of government--to the point of blatant criminality--is either delusional thinking or simple partisan complicity.

I saw Don Siegelman on MSNBC last night, and given that an Alabama appeals court released him because of serious questions regarding his prosecution, I suspect the GOP faithful to be very obnoxious and combative in the near future, as there's a real possibility that the lid may come off of this deeply criminal conspiracy involving the DoJ and the obviously politically motivated prosecution of Democrats all over the country.

You should try to get in touch with reality.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 04/08/2008

It doesn't bother me at all. Rather, I'm grateful for people who take the risk to leak things like this. This is the knd of thing that people need to be aware of. It's an indication of the contempt in which this administration holds the American & Iraqi people.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 AM on 04/08/2008

you can call it imperialism, or you can call it colonialism, or you can simply say it's robbery (yes, the oil), but you can't call it democracy. even if that were the true goal, what hubris! what are we a nation of control freaks? i'll cast my vote for the label of piracy. or you can call it exploitation. or you can call it war profiteering. one might be tempted to say nobody wins, everybody loses, but that's not true. a few crooks have lined their pockets nicely (if that's what winning is).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 AM on 04/08/2008

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is " so slow, halting and superficial" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

The experts reassembled by the US. Institute of Peace, which convened the Iraq Study Group in 2006, went on to state
"The decentralized fragmented political dynamic in Iraq cannot be reversed".

So I guess one man"s "almost back to normal" is another man"s "irreversible fragmented political dynamic".

Hmmmmm, whom to believe?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 04/08/2008

Believe whom you wish, you'll follow your inherent bias anyway. IRAQ is NOT lost and it WILL stabilise in a couple of years. If one of the DEMs takes over, the new Pres will stay the course and reap the VICTORY during his or her tenure. Surrender is NOT an option. But, they won't tell that to people's faces until AFTER they are elected.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 AM on 04/08/2008

Jeez Bob, do you ever apply logic to your reasoning about this, or do you just pick Rush's dropped talking points off his zipper?

Engage your brain; any idiot that takes the helm of this with intent of "staying the course" to "reap the victory" is far more mentally challenged than you, as you're just a GOP peon. There's nothing to win, and any stability gained will be lost in a heart beat; no sustainable stability will come to Iraq until the Iraqis sort out their issues on their terms--artifically imposed governmental goals will fall by the wayside the moment we step out of Iraq. Of course, I realize your NeoCon-posioned brain sees that as a fullfillment of the grand plan, but of course like all things NeoCon, it's simply half-baked idiocy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 04/08/2008

Establishing a base of operations for future contingencies close to the world's trouble spots is a solid strategy. Obama and/or Hillary should be thanking Pres Bush for this forward thinking to redefine ME dynamics. BRAVO!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 AM on 04/08/2008

Well, manning, maintaining and sustaining those permanent bases is going to get even more expensive in the future. The only way the US will be able to staff those forward positions will be to increase service rosters - which have been stretched already, with recruiting numbers down. So, in order to maintain a ready strike force in the US, and maintain deployment levels in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Colombia, Germany, Turkey, Taiwan, Japan and Korea, will be to reactivate the draft and make conscription a four year commitment. I would think that the overall Army TOO would include at least 6-8 million troops at all times. Of course, the amount of money necessary to support that TOO will mean that an additional $250 billion dollars a year. To ease that burden, American parents should sign over their children at 10 to enter military prep schools that would house, feed and 'educate' their future line or support soldiers. Parents would get a nice tax exemption and cash payment. Having a constant supply of NFGs (new f'ing guys) for the military would then allow for REAL EXPANSION...establish a series of bases in France, the UK and the Baltic; bases in Argentina, South Africa and in even in Israel. Let's clean this world up! Let's make every city an American city! BRAVO!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 PM on 04/08/2008

bush has never had a thought in his head that wasn't placed there by some one looking to make money off of other peoples' suffering.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 AM on 04/08/2008

The only post WWII wars we've had major, prolonged engagement in have been Korea and Vietnam. In both instances, stability has come in the form of a nation, geographically (if not ethnically) divided, with a protracted US military presence; a situation not dissimilar to post WWII Germany. With Sunni (Saudi Arabia w/ US backing) and Shiite (Iran) influence equally divided in the region, a similar situation is likely to arise in Iraq; hence McCain's "100 year presence" expectancy. The sooner the geographical boundaries are set and the profits from the oil fields (not the oil fields themselves - those will undoubtedly remain under US/Western supervision) are somehow divided between Iraqi Sunni and Shiia, the sooner the bulk of our troops will be able to come home and those who remain, will be much safer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 04/08/2008

That's nothing but simplistic thinking, and wrong-minded to boot; please do outline that great strategy as it applied to Vietnam, in detail. I lived through that period of history, and I'm not so easily duped by your dogma.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 04/08/2008

Good analysis, and maybe not too far off the mark. But, I have HOPE for CHANGE and UNITY on the Iraqi's parts.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 AM on 04/08/2008

Forced on them at gun point by US troops? Bob... did you ever go to school? Perhaps you should.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 AM on 04/08/2008

Q And how -- what kind of deadline would you perceive within that resolution?

Bush on the importance of deadlines:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there will be deadlines within the (use of force) resolution. Our chief negotiator for the United States, our Secretary of State, understands that we must have deadlines. And we're talking days and weeks, not months and years. And that's essential for the security of the world. This man has had 11 years to comply. For 11 long years, he's ignored world opinion. And he's put the credibility of the United Nations on line.

Press Conf. 9/13/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020913.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 AM on 04/08/2008

Touring Florida in a last-minute push to get seniors on board, Bush said the May 15 deadline was "important" because "deadlines help people understand there's finality and people need to get after it."

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3147

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 AM on 04/08/2008

Not much of secret, is it? They have a lot of oil.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 AM on 04/08/2008

Now add Iran to this! This morning FOX NEWS was spewing that the Iranians added another
3000 tubes and even China is upset LOL. What is wrong with this picture. They can make
electricity anyway they like but Bush and his croonies are putting NUKES into their hands so
they have a reason to attack and then blame it again on faulty intel. We have been thru this
before but people never get smarter, they never learn.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 AM on 04/08/2008

I believe Ahmadinejad reported 6,000 centrifuges for uranium refinement. And most of the other MSM sites are carrying the story also. The catestrophic end to this Iranian Program is coming soon.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 AM on 04/08/2008

Well.. it's obvious you believe all kinds of stupid things...

If we go to war with I guess we'll find you hiding under bush's skirts as usual.... sure wouldn't expect you to back up your war mongering with personal action. Cowards are like that .

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 AM on 04/08/2008

Republicans = Military Failure

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 AM on 04/08/2008

There is nothing very secret about the blatant disregard for human life this administration manifests. There is nothing very secret about the real reasons for this war, the billions being made by these criminals.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 AM on 04/08/2008

This very passionate and strong statement of what so many of us feel gives an opportunity to share a worry: we recoil against the 'blatant disregard for human life' indeed, but there really is a kind of 'secret' to the 'real reasons' for this war. The 'secret' is implied by the utter inanity of the given reasons for the war. THEREFORE, we conclude the worst: it's all about the money for the criminally self-serving. Trouble is, there is another unarticulated view of why we are in Iraq which is just as morally troubling but way different from greed and corruption. It's the cold-eyed assessment of the long, long range view taking into account the fact that for the perhaps short term present the US has unchallenged power. We're not dealing with the merits of that view. I don't hold it, I just suspect it.
I think we need to engage that kind of high rational basis for low brutal policy if we're not to be ignored.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 AM on 04/08/2008

I think you're referring to the neo-con post Cold War attitude of the single, unchallengeable Super Power "we can do what we want" doctrine. Don't need to just suspect it, they admit to it.

I also think I'm reading you to say we need a more pro-active forward/creative approach from a higher moral ground than what our foreign policy has been normally based upon.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 AM on 04/08/2008

Huff 'n Puffers, do any of you think the War Pigs are going to relinquish this cash-cow called Iraq without a fight?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 AM on 04/08/2008

Oh, they'll fight as long as a fight is feasible; but really, you GOP shills should read NEMESIS by Chalmers Johnson--as he points out, once the economy is driven into the ground [almost there], and OPEC drops the dollar as the official currency for the oil market [coming soon], and China decides to call in some really big loans [perhaps not as far off as you might think], then the fight will be over--armies [nor mercs] wage war without funding. Under those conditions, we will be broke financially and broken as a superpower, and if we're not careful, broken as a nation.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 04/08/2008

Does this surprise anyone? We remain in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo etc.