Posted on 06/04/2004 12:12:40 PM PDT by TexKat
UNITED NATIONS - The United States and Britain revised their Security Council resolution on transferring sovereignty to Iraq on Friday, giving the country's new interim government authority to order the U.S.-led multinational force to leave at any time.
The previous draft introduced Tuesday declared the council's readiness to terminate the force's mandate by January 2006 or at the request of the transitional government formed after elections held by Jan. 31, 2005.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that the incoming government wants the multinational force to stay to prevent civil war, and he told The Associated Press on Friday that he could not foresee its departure before power is transferred to the transitional government early next year.
The revised draft circulated to Security Council members includes what Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have stated publicly — that American and British troops will leave if asked.
It declares that the council will terminate the mandate for the multinational force after elections held by Dec. 31, 2005, or earlier "if requested by the sovereign government of Iraq."
Sounds good to me.
Ping
If it makes France shut up, I'm all for it. This doesn't really sound like we've given up anything. And, of course, we reserve the right to protect our national security interests at any time anyway, so we can always have a return engagement. :)
Absolutely.....it would be labeled a PUPPET government if it did NOT have the AUTHORITY to order foriegn troops from it's soil. As the A Team would say, "WE LOVE IT WHEN A PLAN COMES TOGETHER!"
So, if UKUS troops have to leave when asked, they're under the control of Allawi's govt.
AKA - Allawi's militia!
Wouldn't it be great if the Allawi govt is more aggressive against the jihadis.
Captain Bush leads the USA team to another score! And the crowd goes wild!
(Iraq won't want our troops out any more than Germany does)
It makes many nations "shut up." Mostly Arab ones. (I hope) There will be no more of the "occupation" forces that the insurgents are fighting against, only guests in Iraq at the behest of the new government.
Interview by Lee Rodgers with someone (Michael Ledeen?) this am. Explained some of the screwing around in Fallujah.
A local station here has a recently retired Marine officer that is still in contact with people in the military in Iraq. He claimed, at the time, that the Marines were NOT happy campers because they’d intended to go in and mop up. He claimed their pull-back consisted of their biting their tongues and doing what they were told.
Then Bush had his speech and claimed that the pullout was a military, not political decision.
Then the guy today, who claimed it was all about the Iraqi Governing Council not wanting the Marines in there. Supposedly, they all threatened to resign if they were not pulled back. Bremer pitched a fit (with us) and *poof* the Marines were pulled back.
Hmmm.
Let's just hope we don't get the boot right before Nov.
FYI..did you see the front-page story in today's NY Times about Rummy's plan to pull all troops out of Germany..? well worth he read..you'll like it..
Telling us that we aren't needed any longer by the Iraqis because they can handle their security from here (if that's what they do after they have direct elections this September, or January at the latest) would be a big boost to Bush popularity. He could then really say, "Mission Accomplished." We should have a parade and the whole nine yards. Invite Kerry, Kennedy, and Daschle to the victory parade. Give them US flags to wave. It'll be a hoot.
I've kind of changed my thinking on this, and come around to the President's position. Initially I wanted the Marines to go in and deal with the insurgents. However, there will continue to be insurgencies in Iraq, and the Iraqis will have to deal with them eventually...it's the on;y way they'll ultimately be stopped..so, better to pull the Marines back, keep a tight cordon around the town..
That is exactly what soldiers do. They take orders and do what they are told! Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, whatever you want to call them, DO NOT MAKE POLICY! This government is civilian and the civilian government makes policy! The military simply does what it is told. That is the way it has to be. That is why Harry sacked MacArthur. Because he would not listen. Harry sets policy, Doug was suppose to carry it out, not the other way around. Otherwise, you lead to potential military dictatorship!
If the new Iraqi government wants us to stay after June 30, then they should be willing to pay ALL OF THE CONTINUING COSTS OF THE OCCUPATION. If not, we should send the bill to the UN.
I’ll go back through my transcript when I get time. I somehow *clearly* remember Bush stating that the decision to withdraw came from the Marines – that they made a military decision to handle it the way they did.
That appears to NOT be the case, unless you consider their following orders to be the "military decision."
Post #13 gets it.
And the result has been that the jihadists of Fallujah, denied an opportunity to shoot at Marines, have engaged in all manner of violent crime against the residents of Fallujah...
...who are now passing all manner of extremely valuable intel to the Marines and the Iraqi Civilian Defense Corps.
"Rope-a-dope. It's how Ali took the championship from Foreman in Zaire." Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF
LoL's!
Don't acquire a mindset that you are alone with your feelings however!
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.