"So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have released a joint declaration of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a morning teleconference.

Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.

-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup.

Notice also the timetable. The U.S. and Iraq will negotiate another year-long United Nations mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which will expire (I think) in late December 2008. According to today's declaration, following the forthcoming renewal at the U.N., "we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship." That means that during Bush's last year in office, **the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence**. Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse.

The White House is also taking steps to argue that there's nothing unusual about what it intends for Iraq. Here's that fact sheet again:

The Declaration Sets The U.S. And Iraq On A Path Toward Negotiating Agreements That Are Common Throughout The World

The U.S. has security relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent agreements with nations such as Afghanistan and former Soviet bloc countries.

Not stated, of course, is that **Iraq would represent a military commitment opposed by most of the American people**. Nor that it would represent codifying an unpopular war into an unpopular, indefinite war. Nor even what that commitment would entail. Here's the "principle" behind future U.S.-Iraq security ties:

To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.

In other words, we're staying in Iraq to defend Nouri al-Maliki against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What will the presidential candidates say about this?..." Blog article from HuffPo asterisks mine


What do you think of this Joint Declaration?
How might it effect the election in 11-08?'
Other comments especially regarding the asterisked words?

(Note: Cheney in hospital today with an irregular heartbeat)

I don't care for the way the author of the article slants the issue with personal observations…it's more in the category of a op-ed rather than a unbiased news report…even cnn's news article is better in that respect.
How it might effect the election… it just takes more wind out of the sails of the Democrates.

Choux, it isn't a blog from Huffpo, it's by Spencer Ackerman (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004772.php), and I too am anxious to here the presidential candidates on this. In fact, I'd love to see the Dems squirm over it at the next debate.

Steve
P.S. They've all known this was coming, no matter their endless bloviating on getting us out of Iraq.

I think it takes the pressure off the Democrats. (Although I think at this time it was done to "help" Republican candidates for Congress(Senate and House) where the Repubs are going to lose lots of seats)

The Dems were going to run against Geo. W. Bush anyway, and this really sets dislike of Bush and his failed Presidency in stone for the majority of American people who want American troops out of the MiddleEast. This agreement brings into focus all the lies Bush told along the way that don't sit well with citizens.

I think it takes the pressure off the Democrats. (Although I think at this time it was done to "help" Republican candidates for Congress(Senate and House) where the Repubs are going to lose lots of seats)

The Dems were going to run agains Geo. W. Bush anyway, and this really sets dislike of Bush and his failed Presidency in stone for the majority of American people who want American troops out of the MiddleEast. This agreement brings into focus all the lies Bush told along the way that don't sit well with citizens.

It probably does take pressure off Dems, at least those playing to the anti-war crowd, they'll exploit this to please their base. I do want to see how Hillary continues morphing into the anti-war candidate and how they all deal with the fact that the Iraqis want us to stick around after all these years of saying they don't want us there. Especially since "Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD8T5ODQ80)," in spite of Ackerman's denial on U.S. military presence. :D

I would say from a historical perspective that Korea was also an unpopular war and yet we still have a security arrangement with South Korea that has lasted all my life time. I do not think that public opinion is all that relevant to the question. The debate is :does the US have a vested interest in having a presence in the ME and does a security relationship with a free democratic Iraq serve that interest ?

I do not think Iraq will be all that big an issue in 2008. The Democrats have tried everything to try and snatch defeat from victory and they have not been able to succeed . Their latest attempt at denying funding will backfire badly . The American people are in no mood for denying the military the things they need to do their job regardless about how they feel about the Iraq war. This is a terrible mistake by the Democrats .

Their desperation became readily apparent over the weekend when they used a former General they had previously trashed ;Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez ,to make the Sat. radio response to President Bush .Sanchez Delivers Democratic Party Weekly Radio Address (Updated) (SWJ Blog) (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/sanchez-delivers-democratic-pa/)

Sanchez was a key integral part of the early occupation but he admitted no acknowledgement to his own role in the difficulties. Then he never bothered to admit that there is a new strategy that has yielded positive results. It is laughable ,almost like General Custer commenting on strategy about how best to defeat the Indians .This is the same mistake the Democrats as a whole have. If they admit progress they do so grudgingly and with caveats. That just feeds into the impression that they are invested in defeat.

It is what makes Hillary such a strong foe . She is bucking the conventional wisdom in the party to a degree, and has admitted that her foreign policy will for the most part be a continuation with tweaking of the Bush Doctrine.

Of course this will give an opening for the war for oil crowd . But that meme ignores the obvious fact that we could've gotten a better deal with Saddam if our purpose was to drink Iraqi oil.

First, this article seems to say that Bush has no right to argue for any sort of treaty or amitice agreement or joint security agreement because doing so would affect the environement in which future presidents will have to operate. Does that argument make any sense to you? Isn't the president supposed to make such decisions? Isn't that his job? By the argument being made in this article, no president should ever enter into any treaty or agreement that lasts longer than his time in office, because it will be tying the hands of the next president. I don't buy that argument.

Second, for quite a whiel now, anti-war libs have been arguing that we have no legal business in Iraq, that the Iraqi government is not working with us and we should therefore pull out, and that there are no political goals and benchmarks. This document answers all three of these points. It legalizes our presence in Iraq (not that it was ever ILLEGAL), it gets Maliki to sign on to a plan of action that he must adhere to, and it sets political benchmarks and goals for future cooperation between the USA and Iraq. Exactly what part of this declaration do the libs have a problem with?

And any military/security agreement with any country with which we have such an arrangement with is for the purpose of protecting that government. Yes, we have security agreements that will keep the current government of the UK in power if they are attacked. Ditto for every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe with which we have such agreements. How does such an agreement with Maliki differ from any other similar agreement?

Finally, I had no idea that in order for Bush to sign an agreement with Iraq the agreement had to have popular support from the American people. I didn't know that wars had to be popular to be fought. And I didn't know that a President is supposed to command by popularity poll.

Elliot

Democrat responses are coming in.

Hillary:
Given the express will of Congress and the American people to oppose permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, the failure to include express language addressing this issue in the Declaration of Principles with the Iraqi government is deeply troubling. To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts...

I urge you to clarify the Declaration of Principles with the Iraqi government to confirm that the United States does not plan to place any permanent bases within Iraq and instead plans to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Such a clarification would make clear to the citizens of both nations that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is temporary and encourage Iraqi political leaders to make greater efforts towards political reconciliation.

That's amusing, even if Iraq is requesting our presence Bush should tell them we're bugging out. But, that's no surprise, the left's concern for the Iraqi people disappeared once their genocidal dictator was threatened. Even the guy that signed off on a policy of regime change in Iraq is the latest Clinton to flip-flop on Iraq:


"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/bill-clinton-re.html)," said Clinton, "I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers." -11/27/07

I guess he forgot this:


"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." -Bill Clinton, 2003

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing." -Bill Clinton to Time magazine, 2004

Christopher Dodd:
Frankly, it’s hard to believe that the Administration is just beginning to figure out what the future bilateral relationship with Iraq should look like after more than four years of military occupation. But, this declaration of principles is more notable for what it doesn’t say than what it does. It does not require Iraqi leaders to make substantive progress on their political benchmarks nor does it end US military involvement in Iraq. Indeed, Senator Dodd is fearful that the lack of clarity on the long-term presence will be used as a justification by this Administration for a permanent military presence in Iraq, at precisely the time when we should be declaring the opposite. In a Dodd Adminsitration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.

So far they're all ready to abandon Iraq.

And from Harry Reid's spokesman:
"Nearly six years into the war, the President still fails to understand that 'go-it-alone' is a not a successful strategy. Just as he ignored facts and the world community in getting us into this war and is ignoring the demands of Congress and the American people to get us out, President Bush is now trying to unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security -- an area [where] the President has absolutely zero credibility."

There we have it, 3 for 3. Perhaps if the Democrats would support America and Iraq again Bush wouldn't have to go it alone.

Bill Clinton is truly a detestable person. The regime change policy began during his administration. There are more than enough quotes from those days where he talked about Saddam and WMD . He bombed the cr@p out of them in 1998!! Does he forget ?

"I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

I would like to ask Bill Clinton... what prevents hm from opening his check book and writing a big fat check to one of the many efforts to support the troops ? I would also ask him to make public his tax returns for the last 5 years . I would be very interested in what deductions he claimed.