So there is some kind of agreement about U.S. troop reductions in Iraq:
BAGHDAD, Aug. 21 — U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.
Is there a clear definition for ‘combat forces’? I have yet to see one.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have now also agreed to a conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011, a date further in the future than the Iraqis initially wanted. The deal would leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles, such as military trainers, for an unspecified time. According to the U.S. military, there are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of whom are playing a combat role.
What are the ‘conditions’ in ‘condition based’? There is a big difference between ‘combat troops’ and troops in ‘playing a combat role’. (Is killing people now playing?) All troops within a military have ‘combat roles’. The last sentence is thereby meaningless propaganda.
Let me guess: There will be at least one full U.S. tank brigade and a two infantry brigades as ‘military trainers’ left in Iraq when all ‘troops with combat roles’ are declared to have gone.
Facing challenges from within his own majority Shiite group, as well as from minority Sunnis and Kurds, Maliki pledged that there would be no "secret deals" with the United States. He said the agreement would be put to a vote in Iraq’s fractious parliament.
Does anyone believe in a ‘pledge’ by Maliki?
I am a bit astonished about the parliament thingy. The signs were pointing to an agreement that would be made outside of the Iraqi parliament and Congress. Either Maliki thinks he can find a majority for this which I find unlikely, or this is his way to sabotage the deal. "Look I have tried, but the … party just would not go along …"
Originially there were two agreements: A Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) and a ‘strategic framework agreement’. The second one would:
broadly address issues not covered by the SOFA, including those outlined in a "declaration of principles" document signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November 2007. Among these issues: the U.S. role in defending Iraq from internal and external threats; its support of political reconciliation; and its efforts to confront terrorist groups.
Rice’s current trip seems to have covered only the SOFA.
But the ‘strategic framework’ is much more a restriction of Iraq’s sovereignty than the SOFA is? What is the status of negotiations on that one? Will the Iraqi parliament get a chance to vote on that too?
There are many open question here. Unfortunately, no report seems to answers those yet.
