US refuses to discuss with Iraq the withdrawal of US troops

(January 11) According to a Washington Post report the Iraqi PM has asked for the US to devise a mechanism for withdrawal of its troops from the country.

	1 of 2

The Iraq parliament passed the motion 170 to 0 but many Kurdish and Sunni members did not attend. The non-binding resolution read: “The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory. The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

US reaction

The US has quickly shown that it will not cooperate in Iraqi plans to eject US and other foreign troops The US State Dept. has signaled that it is not at all willing to discuss a mechanism for US withdrawal according to a recent report: The State Department said in a statement Friday that the U.S. will not hold discussions with Iraq regarding American troop withdrawal from the country.“At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East,” State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.“There does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq,” Ortagus added, writing that “America is a force for good in the Middle East.”"

It is hard to see how the US is a force for the good in the Middle East when it directly opposes a decision by a sovereign country. This is happening after the US assassinated a key official of neighboring Iran without getting permission from the Iraqi government. It also assassinated a key official of an Iraqi government militia group approved and financed militia. How can the US be for a sovereign Iraq when it has violated its sovereignty several times without even an apology? All the US says in its defense is that it has not received a formal request to leave. Yet it has a request to plan a mechanism for leaving that it refuses to discuss.

Letter suggesting the US would leave called a mistake

The Pentagon said that a letter sent to the Iraqi Defense Ministry saying that the US would leave Iraq was a mistake and that US troops would be remaining in the country. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley: “That letter is a draft, it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should never have been released." Yet the Iraqi PM insists that he had received the letter with a signature and had sought and received clarification about the translation. The issue just seems to have dropped off the mainstream news media with no explanation as to the contradiction except that it is clear that the US is not intending to withdraw voluntarily.

US threatened Iraq in response to parliamentary resolution

Trump responded angrily to the Iraqi parliament resolution requesting that US troops withdraw:" We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.,..If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame. If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq."

Trump has made it clear that the US has no intention of leaving Iraq voluntarily. Given that the US is supposed to be in Iraq at Iraq's request the US may face a legal problem. Iraq could bring a case before the International Criminal Court(ICC). However, the US does not recognize and opposes the court. Iraq could find itself subject to further sanctions if it goes to the Court. In September of 2018 John Bolton announced a new policy toward the ICC: "In a September 2018 speech, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, announced a change in US policy toward the court and outlined several steps the US would take if ICC investigations reached US nationals or the nationals of US allies. In addition to travel bans, Bolton threatened prosecutions and financial sanctions against ICC staff, as well as against countries and companies assisting in ICC investigations of US nationals. He warned that the US would restart long-abandoned efforts to negotiate agreements with other countries against surrendering US nationals to the court and put other governments’ diplomatic, military, and intelligence ties with the US at risk if those governments cooperate with the ICC in investigations of the US or its allies."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraq parliament again fails to pass electoral law

The US is getting quite anxious about this process since the main withdrawal from Iraq is supposed to take place 60 days after the election. If the election is late so may be the withdrawal. Even if the bill goes through today it would seem that election cannot take place until near the end of February.


Iraq MPs again fail to vote on new election law


Baghdad, Dec 5 (AFP) Iraq's parliament met today to vote on a new electoral law for polls early next year but no quorum was reached and the session was postponed until tomorrow, speaker Iyad Samarrai said.

"There are only 113 members present, and therefore no quorum. A new session will take place tomorrow at 11 am (1330 IST)," he told MPs.

There are 275 seats in the Iraqi legislature, and at least 138 members must be present for a session to go ahead.

President Jalal Talabani had called today's session to vote on a draft law to govern legislative elections, urging MPs to quickly pass the law, without which the general election can not proceed.

The United Nations on Wednesday proposed February 27 as the most "feasible" date for parliamentary elections, nearly a month later than the deadline set by the constitution.

US in Iraq for the long haul

Nothing said here about benchmarks or withdrawal once the benchmarks are met. The surge is just a ploy to actually get more troops in Iraq. The US will be in Iraq for the forseeable future although there may be some draw down of troops just to assuage the public but even this is not clear. The Democrats are hopeless as far as forcing any withdrawal. The great colussus of an embassy in Baghdad is the true picture of the future of the US in Iraq. It is the largest US embassy in the world I understand. It puts Saddam's palaces to shame.

ABC Leaks Plans to Extend ‘Surge,’ Then Pulls the Story
Saturday, June 2nd, 2007 in News by Eric Garris|

Update: ABC has posted a toned-down version of the story.

“ABC News Learns of Plans to Keep Troops in Iraq Beyond 2009,” was the top story posted on Saturday morning’s edition of Antiwar.com. Then the story disappeared.

The link now says “You’ve requested an ABCNews.com page that does not exist.”

The story said that US officials had told ABC News that the troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained at the present level, either politically or practically, with the military stretched so thin.

It went on to explain that this had not deterred the plans of top US commanders in Iraq want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension.

This was an important story, but elements of it still exist. Gen. Odierno had said on Thursday that he would probably need more time than September to assess the results of the new strategy. The same day Defense Secretary Gates indicated that our presence in Iraq would be for a “protracted period of time.” The previous day, White House spokesman Tony Snow indicated our 50-year presence in Korea should be a good future model for Iraq.

A portion of the article was retrieved from a bulletin board posting:

U.S. officials told ABC News that the troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained at the present level, either politically or practically, with the military stretched so thin.

But that does not imply an immediate drawdown. Officials told ABC’s Martha Raddatz that the senior commanders in Iraq — Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. David Petraeus — want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension.

The drawdown would begin in February 2008, although each of the two generals supports a slightly different plan.

Plan one, which officials say Odierno is pushing, calls for a reduction in troops from roughly 150,000 today to 100,000 by December 2008.

Petraeus champions a slightly different approach that would cut the troops down to roughly 130,000 by the end of 2008, with further reductions the following year.

Presence in Iraq Beyond 2009

There is also discussion of how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates envisions “some presence” on the part of the United States that “provides reassurance to our friends and to governments in the region, including those that might be our adversaries, that we’re going to be there for a long time,” Gates said.

A senior official said one long-term plan would have 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. forces in Iraq for five to 10 years beyond 2009.

During that period, the bulk of the troops would be deployed to bases at strategic points throughout Iraq to respond to crisis in those areas. Camp Victory would continue to operate as the U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad.

Digg it [what's this