Posted on 01/24/2008 6:50:15 PM PST by jdm
A new agreement between Iraq and the US will curtail American military operations and confine our troops to primarily support and logistics efforts. NBC News reports that the long-simmering bilateral security agreement would keep American bases in operation but with substantially reduced troop levels. Iraqis want their own forces in lead roles for security operations:
The United States and Iraq will soon begin negotiating a power shift for U.S. forces, nearly five years after they invaded Iraq and installed a new government, Iraqi and U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.Both countries are working on assembling negotiating teams to shape a new long-term bilateral strategic agreement redefining the fundamental role of U.S. troops, whose mission would shift from combat operations to logistics and support, the officials told NBC News’ Richard Engel. ...
But a senior member of the Iraqi negotiating team, which has been almost completely appointed, said they would seek to have U.S. troops — who for five years have conducted aggressive combat missions across the country against al-Qaida and other radical Muslim militias — largely confined to their bases.
U.S. troops would have only limited freedom of movement off base under Iraq’s position, leaving only when requested to provide intelligence, air support, equipment and other logistical support, the Iraqi negotiator said.
General David Petraeus apparently has signed off on this plan, telling NBC that the American role will begin changing. The move will come as a surprise to most, as analysts predicted a heavy American presence and lead for security efforts through the end of the year. This new plan does not have a specific announced timetable, but both Iraq and the US wants to adjust the partnership to account for the change in troop levels that will come as the surge rotations end.
Can Iraq handle it? NBC says that American military commanders have considered the Iraqi forces as "all teeth and no tail", meaning that they lack the equipment and reserve capacity needed to maintain control of the borders and internal security. An extended American presence can provide that, while reducing the aggressive nature of the US troops in Iraqi lives. With the Iraqi Army built to a more competent level, the two countries have better options than existed a year ago, when only a heavier American presence could tamp down the violence that raged throughout Iraq in 2006.
If the Iraqis succeed in transitioning to the lead role, it will represent a significant victory in the war on terror, and will transform the 2008 election. Instead of debating whether to bug out or keep fighting, the issue will be how best to consolidate the gains and maintain an effective presence in the region to continue to fight the terrorists. Those who declared defeat less than a year ago will have to answer for their lack of fortitude.
Have Iraqi Forces Grown A Tail?
They had one, is was curled between their ass cheeks.
This is the way it’s supposed to be.
“We’ve lost, they’ve surrounded our troops!” - Sen Harry Reid, D-NV
President Bush held firm, and now the day is won.
The greatest success in the history of the armed forces of The United States of America!
Harry POS Reid BUMP!
This is the endgame. If anyone asks what victory in Iraq looks like, this is it.
General Petraeus has obviously signed off on this plan, and although there is no specific timetable attached (no surprise there), obviously the commanders in Iraq and at the Pentagon think it's achievable.
We'll need to keep a USAF presence at Balad for some time, since the Iraqi Air Force will take the longest amount of time to equip and train. They need to be able to fight off the Iranian Air Force without our help.
Can we get this wrapped up in time for General Patraeus to get back to the states, and make a triumphant entry into the GOP convention and to be nominated by acclimation?!
Aww, come on!! We can dream can’t we?
Don’t count your victories before they’re achieved. A RAT Presiden and/or Congress could easily turn this around and throw us into defeat. Al Qaeda could wave the white flag right now and the RATs would still declare Iraq a loss and pull us out.
And even if all of our troops are out before the 2008 election, the RATs could still lose Iraq by cutting off aid, just like they did in Vietnam even after we were all out of there.
An odd perspective you offer aboe.
You think that Democrats want to be known as Jimmy Carteresque “losers of Iraq?!”
A stable Iraq with U.S. combat troops drawn down to mere support roles would make it political suicide for Democrats to then cut, run, and have Iraq fall.
Moreover, Iraq isn’t likely to fall, so any Democratic Party retreat from Iraq will be met with a public relations yawn.
...and even under the most pessimistic scenarios, the Dems would find it politically costly to cut off U.S. remote air support via unmanned Predators flying cover for Iraqi ground moves.
One major difference. Iraq has its own money. Oil. This year’s budget for the development of ISF is 3 Bil from US and 9 Bil brom GoI.
Even if cut off, they could still make it.
Vietnam did not have that safety net...
But... but... what will the Democrats run on then?
I don’t know...a lot of dem supporters I’ve been talking to still refuse to believe that things are going good in Iraq. And from what I’ve read on Vietnam, we were doing just as good there and that still didn’t stop the RATs in Congress from cutting off aid.
Nowadays, it seems to me that the opponents of the Iraq war couldn’t care less how the war is going. As far as they’re concerned, we’re over there illegally and thus any gains are, in effect, illegal as well.
What if a RAT president put an oil embargo on Iraq?
You seem confused.
They would have to justify it to the other countries.
The US does not buy most of the ME oil and all an embargo would do is move the sales to Europe and China. The world does not revolve exclusively around the US.
You are aware that the reason for the high oil prices now is a combination of speculation and China filling its own emergency reserve. China is about 75% of the way to filling a 90-day reserve like we maintain.
Why not? Caesar did it!
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.