Iraqi Legislators Call For Timetable For U.S. Withdrawal

In a letter to Congress, dovetailing with yesterday's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, have expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops."

We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any treaty, agreement or "executive agreement" that is signed between Iraq and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of implementation without first being ratified by the Council of Representatives, in accordance with Article 61 of Section Four of the Iraqi constitution, which gives the Iraqi government's legislative power, represented by the Council of Representatives, the exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a pretty damned clear message from where I'm sitting.
So is Iraq a sovereign entity with a Democratically elected government in place or not? They obviously want us to make our way toward the exits.

Thirty-one out of, what, two hundred seventy five?

I don't think the USA will leave Iraq for many years. Any more than they'll leave Diego Garcia and allow the Chagos Islanders back (another joint British-US fuckup).

we shouldnt leave

till they pay us back for saving their ass

if they dont wanna pay

TAKE THE OIL

fucking ingrates

The United States has built about 14 permanent military bases. Anyone who thinks that American troops won't be in Iraq for the next 50+ years is dipping into the cooking sherry for breakfast...

The United States will have an enduring presence in Iraq long into this century.

Slowlane said:

Thirty-one out of, what, two hundred seventy five?

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

They have their equivalent to our wacko democrats.

Click to expand...

Not big on the reading comprehension are ya sports?

"thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament"

Did ya want 200 signatures?

vetteman said:

They have their equivalent to our wacko democrats.

Click to expand...

Those are fighting words.

Ulaven_Demorte said:

"thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament"

Did ya want 200 signatures?

Click to expand...

150 would be fine, thanks.

You don't give a child a piece of candy just because he / she asks for one. We know what is best for Iraq.

She is too new at democracy. She needs help. We need to babysit her until she can function on her own, and only we shall determine when that time has come.

(Bending over to American oil interests and accepting Jesus Christ as lord and saviour will expedite the process.)

RoryN said:

You don't give a child a piece of candy just because he / she asks for one. We know what is best for Iraq.

She is too new at democracy. She needs help. We need to babysit her until she can function on her own, and only we shall determine when that time has come.

(Bending over to American oil interests and accepting Jesus Christ as lord and saviour will expedite the process.)

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

We need to stay, to make sure they dont start selling their natural resources for those pesky Euros.

Yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he would like to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Today, however, the Bush administration rejected the timetable. In an April 24, 2007 interview with Charlie Rose, however, President Bush said he would remove troops if asked by Iraq, but he predicted that Maliki would not ask for a withdrawal:

ROSE: But if he said get out now, we don’t want you anymore–

BUSH: I don’t see how we could stay. It is his country.

ROSE: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested.

BUSH: That’s why he’s not going to say it.

ROSE: You don’t think he’ll say it?

BUSH: I don’t. No, I don’t.

“We’re looking at conditions, not calendars here,” State Department spokeperson Gonzalo Gallegos said today.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.


So is Iraq a sovereign country or a colony? This isn't the first time they've asked for concrete timetables for our withdrawal.

Funny how when the Iraqui parliament was set up, it was pretty much proportional to population.
Apart from the Kurds. They were given a larger proportion. Just enough, in fact, to veto any "troops out" resolution.

Funny that.

SeanH said:

Funny how when the Iraqui parliament was set up, it was pretty much proportional to population.
Apart from the Kurds. They were given a larger proportion. Just enough, in fact, to veto any "troops out" resolution.

Funny that.

Click to expand...

So far this has been a major sticking point in the negotiations. I don't think that the Iraqi government is going to accept anything less than the timetable they're asking for in the agreement. I'm interested to see how this plays out since we (the US) have insisted all along that Iraq is a sovereign state.

Now that they are asking for us to tell them when we're leaving we're acting as if we have some say in the matter. If they want us out we have no business staying and should be packing up, or just go ahead and declare Iraq a colony of the US with no autonomous governmental rights at all and get it over with.

We'll see what happens if this goes on unresolved until the UN mandate expires and we have no real authority to stay at all.

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."