U.S. and Iraq to negotiate pact on long-term relations

WASHINGTON: The White House announced Monday that it had reached a deal with the Iraqi government to negotiate a formal agreement defining long-term relations between the two nations, including the legal status of American military forces remaining in Iraq.

The "Declaration of Principles" signed Monday via video link by President George W. Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, does not specify the eventual number of American troops nor the length of their deployment. That issue is certain to be central in the 2008 presidential campaign that will be under way as American and Iraqi negotiators work toward a July deadline on a treaty governing relations between the two countries.

But senior administration officials stressed the significance of the agreement signed Monday, saying that it was leading to a far more durable political, economic and security relationship than is possible under the current United Nations resolution, which serves as the foundation under international law for the American-led effort in Iraq.

From Flopping Ace:

The New Iraq "Security Arrangement"
Posted by Curt on November 26, 2007 at 10:21 AM

*************************EXCERPT*********************

We all knew that the left would be a bit upset once a deal was made to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as a partner, and as we do still in Japan and Germany some 60 years after the war:

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

************************snip*************************
But the left will scream about something or another anyways. If every single soldier had been sent back to the US they would have said that there were secret deals going on to ensure we are pulling the strings, because we are the puppetmasters you see? Now when news comes that the Iraqi's want us around as partners for security, the left are wailing such sillyness as "staying was the plan all along."

Get it? We went in for oil you see.....that's why we have such cheap gas now.

Sigh....

Bet that it may we still have 37,000 troops in South Korea for exactly the same reasons that the Iraqi's want us to stay in Iraq. A tripwire against further aggression.

Whether the future aggressor is North Korea, China or some other rogue country that isn't on the radar yet, countries want insurance. And most feel that taking out that insurance with the United States is their best bet. Hell, Germany no longer has fears of a USSR attack but we're still there. Why? Because you never know when your gonna need military support. And did you know that we have security relationships with over 100 countries worldwide? No outcry from the left on those arrangements tho.

More from the FA Blog:

**********************************

UPDATE

Get this headline from a lefty site:

War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification

To their credit they paste the full quote from the General about this fact:

Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?

GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it's not -- it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.

Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?

GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.

Again, no outcry about the one hundred similar agreements that were put in place without Senate ratification. Shocker!

Other's Blogging:

Any idea how your new guy is gonna react to this?

No. He's been very tight-lipped about Iraq. I can't recall a single mention of the subject during his campaign for election. There was a general comment in the past few days that several hundred aussie troops would leave Iraq to be deployed in Afghanistan...but the majority would remain in Iraq. My general impression is the aussies have elected a Giant Smiley for their Prime Minister. He's a Diplomat. Full of empty rhetoric but he delivers it so well... There was one clear message for the muzzies in his acceptance speech however - he said Oz deserves to be protected from terrorism and our borders will be strongly protected. So...if the Left expects the doors to be opened to 'refugees' methinks they will be sorely dissappointed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.