US-Iraq Security Talks Hit Snag;
Mosul Police HQ Bombed, 55 Killed or Wounded
The US is still hopeful that it can conclude a security agreement with the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on the framework for a US troop presence next year after the UN Security Council authorization runs out. The negotiations have produced a sharp reaction from a broad cross-section of the Iraqi public, Sunni and Shiite, and different factions of the Shiites. The US embassy is trying to blame Iran for all this, but the allegation won't wash. Iran does oppose the pact, but so do lots of Iraqis, including close US allies in Iraq and the nativist urban slum youth of the Sadr Movement, who don't even like Iran.
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis have united to reject the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States. A high-level Iraqi source told the pan-Arab London daily that one point of dispute is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited. The Americans are said to be seeking to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. The US wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. Washington desires the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission. The US wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.
The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack. Likewise it is not offering to safeguard the democratic regime in Iraq.
Iraqis for their part are demanding a recognition of Iraqi sovereignty.
Sunni Arab guerrillas used a car bomb to attack the province police HQ in the northern city of Mosul on Monday, killing 9 and wounding at least 46. Five of those killed were policemen, and 4 civilians. Mosul, a city of about 1.7 million, is Iraq's second largest. About 80 percent Sunni Arab, it is a prize over which Arabs and Kurds are conducting a low-intensity war. Baath and Sunni radical cells have been active there, and recently PM Nuri al-Maliki launched a well publicized drive to use the new Iraqi army to bring the rebellious city under control. Ninevah governor Durayd Kashmula recently admitted that this winter and spring, Mosul was under the control of Salafi Jihadis or "al-Qaeda" as he called them. Al-Maliki's campaign resulted in no major battles and the anti-government forces appear just have been lying low. Until Monday.
A US soldier was announced killed in northeastern Baghdad by a roadside bomb. On Sunday, 2 were killed in a bombing near the Iranian embassy.
McClatchy reports other political violence on Monday in Iraq:
' Baghdad
- Around noon, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol near Sarafiya bridge in Uttafiyah neighborhood (north Baghdad).One person was killed and six others were wounded including three policemen .
- Gunmen threw a grenade on a civilian car near Qahtan square in Yarmouk (west Baghdad).Three people were injured .
- Police found three dead bodies in the following neighborhoods in Baghdad: 2 in Karkh bank;1 in Amil and 1 in Iskan. While 1 was found in Fudhailiyah in Risafa bank
Mosul
- A car bomb targeted an army patrol at 17th July neighborhood. One soldier was killed and another was injured.
- A bomb which was planted inside the car of the deputy dean of Mosul agricultural college.Faris Yunis was killed in that incident. . .
Kirkuk
- Gunmen killed a policeman in downtown Kirkuk city and then they kidnapped a civilian from the same spot taking him to unknown location. '
Reuters adds: "MOSUL - A roadside bomb targeting a U.S. patrol killed one woman in western Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said."
Tomdispatch.com on presidential bloodlust.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/03/2008 12:25:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
"Likewise it is not offering to safeguard the democratic regime in Iraq."
A wise movie, because only an idiot would believe that USA the imperialist invader is going to do such things
ANY democratic regime in Iraq would be ANTI-USA occupation, to put it mildly
It will never be signed. The U.S. should present another Agreement, one in which compensation to Iraqi for U.S. war crimes and CIA backed Saddam's crimes. Also, compensation for theft of Oil recourses and destruction of Archeological and industrial assets. Someone should track the address of anyone that will agree to sign on the Agreement the U.S. has presented.
Keep on dreaming wild and wet dreams Cheney-Bush. You stated you want Democracy and Freedom in the Middle East, murdered millions in the process, devastated the U.S. moral standing, army and personnel; and U.S. treasury is living now on borrowed time, what!! All that for a lie #2897650.
ref : “the U.S.-Iraq Status Of Forces Agreement”
Carte Blanche : unrestricted power to act at one's own discretion; an unconditional authority: “...in the literal sense, it is a cheque that has no numerical value written in, but is already signed. In the figurative or metaphoric sense, it is used (especially in politics) to describe a situation in which an Agreement has been made that is either open-ended or vague, and therefore subject to abuse.”
“The metaphor of the "blank cheque" is thus often used in politics. For example in the United States, the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’ has been called a "blank cheque", for it gave the U.S. President, Lyndon B. Johnson, the power to "take all necessary measures" to prevent "aggression" in Southeast Asia. These powers were then used to escalate the Vietnam War. Many in the United States Congress protested, but were helpless to effect change, for the ‘Tonkin’ resolution's terms were too subjective to enforce.”
“This expression was also used to describe how the Kaiser of Germany (Kaiser Wilhelm II) told Austria-Hungary officials that they could deal with Serbia however they wanted, after Serbian Nationalists assassinated the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This "carte blanche" Agreement immediately preceded World War I.”
That the Administration of George W. Bush is seeking, by means of “the U.S.-Iraq Status Of Forces Agreement” yet another "carte blanche" legitimacy that would enable "the unrestricted power to act at one's own discretion" without accountability to the state of ‘IRAQ’, or any other international body (e.g., the U.N., etc.) or any other, domestic U.S. Constitutional legal authority ~ is obvious. That the Iraqi people, be they Sunni or Shi'ite ~ seek to establish therein some precedent recognizing their own notion of that nation's sovereignity ~ as well as their own dignity as a universal Human Right ~ is also plainly evident.
imho, What has not been made clear to the American electorate is how hauntingly similar this ‘SOFA’ is to the now much regretted ‘AUMF’ = Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists of 9/18 2001... surely now comparable, in the minds of many Americans to the notorious ‘Tonkin’ resolution; and perhaps the singularly distinctive, defining issue of the presidential campaign of 2008. We know, "what the U.S. government wants" : what we don't know, and what is never explained within all the details of this new SOFAgreement, is: “Why?”
The conceit, implicit of the SOFA is not some root issue of dominium eminens; Rather, imho it is: that it is for some reason necessary for the U.S. to remain in = to occupy IRAQ.
Unlike the ever-changing reasons given to invade IRAQ, we find ourselves ~5 years later experiencing, not ever-changing reasons, but this rather weird false dilemma ‘reason, implicit’ to occupy IRAQ: “We must remain in Iraq because we cannot leave Iraq.”
iow, it is one thing to deconstruct these negotioations and argue, "that this or that aspect of the SOFA is unreasonable"... and quite another for we, who are aware of history ~ to point out that "there is no reason, apparent for this carte blanche Agreement."
request clarification. Baghdad is the largest Iraqi city. Basra has over 2 million population. So isn't Mosul the third largest?
Concerning the conditions contained in the SOFA, I'm perplexed : they are so bluntly colonial that you wonder whether anyone reasonable could expect the Iraqi to sign on this. So I'm wondering whether it's not just a trick in order to get the Iraqi to sign another "more reasonable SOTA", once that would still satisfy the US imperialist goals : at the beginning of a negotiation, you ask the most in order to get the minimum you have fixed.
Still, the question remain, as to whether the Bush administration has correctly evaluated how far the Iraqi puppet governement can go.
Or may be that the machiavelist have exagerated the demands in order to create rebellion on the part of the Sadrists and then justify a coup which would definitively install the US puppet leaders as dictators and thus avoiding the unfavorable outcome of the coming elections ?
Post a Comment
<< Home