7 US Soldiers Killed;
Al-Maliki Doubts Security Agreement
A helicopter crash in southern Iraq killed 7 US troops on Wednesday. The crash may or may not be the result of hostile action by elements of the Mahdi Army.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki signaled on Wednesday that the security agreement being negotiated by Iraq with the Bush administration is in trouble. Apparently the big sticking point is that the US continues to demand that US soldiers in Iraq retain their immunity from prosecution for crimes in the Iraqi courts.
A US soldier is in custody on possible murder charges in an incident that left two other military personnel dead.
The Iraqi parliament seems unable to pass enabling legislation to allow provincial elections to be held. Some 128 parliamentarians (out of 275) are die hard opposed to the alternative, which is to hold the provincial elections under the old law, which makes people vote blind for party lists rather than for individuals.
Tariq Ali asks if the US war with Pakistan has begun.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/18/2008 01:22:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
It is with great annoyance that I read that Centcom wants to take overall command of the troops in Afghanistan.
The US is trying to suck NATO countries deeper into the mire. Centcom is atempting to unify the command and make our troops cannon fodder for the Americans.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-seeking-sole-command-of-natos-war-against-the-taliban-934256.html
I am unimpressed with Obama's promise to make Nato countries contribute more toops.
With 2% of the population of the UK of Pakstani origin it is not in UK interest to be invading Pakistan.
If the US wants to command in another Asian war whose objective is unclear, they can stump up the troops themselves.
Bring back the DRAFT and send our guys home.
Is not the current US financial crisis, with its demands for 100's of billions of bailout money, a powerful argument for ending the waste of taxpayer money in Iraq?
Correction on the fragging story:
Not that it matters to the families of the dead, but the two soldiers killed weren't officers but NCO's, a staff sergeant and a sergeant.
Here's a link to a piece by E&P:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003850908
The Pentagon has announced, but the media not yet covered (beyond the basic facts, and usually not that) a shocking incident in Iraq. Two U.S. soldiers -- a staff sergeant and a sergeant -- were killed Sunday morning in a "non-hostile incident."
Just a small correction - the two soldiers killed were not officers. It doesn't so much change the situation, but if we're trying to be accurate in reporting this... Military readers will also appreciate the correct usage of military terminology. Thanks
the security agreement being negotiated by Iraq with the Bush administration is in trouble.
It has been evident for a long time that Maliki was never going to sign (well, from early July). And it even seems to have got into the thick heads of the US negotiating team in the last couple of weeks.
What I am curious to know, is just how the situation is going to be resolved. Is the occupation going to continue illegally? (the most probable I think). Is Maliki waiting to do a deal with Obama (I doubt that; the Iraqis see the US as monolithic)? Or is he going to write a letter to the Security Council asking for a one-year extension of the mandate (Again doubtful - any commitment to paper is difficult for Maliki to do)? Or is Maliki going to be overturned by the US?
The more I think about it, the illegal continuation of the occupation is about the only solution, if the US is not going to agree to withdraw (as there is no sign of it doing). No doubt the illegality will be covered up by some flim-flam emanating only from the US side, but illegal it will be.
Regarding item three. First of all a real tragedy, two particularly senseless deaths in a senseless war.
But I'm not sure that my PFC son would call it fragging. Maybe sergeant-on-sergeant violence. I have always associated fragging with an effort by grunts at self-preservation not job performance issues between NCOs. You don't need to post this Juan.
Fascinating that the sine qua non for the Bush administration, after all it's done, is to avoid exposure of its illegal activities. Makes one think they only care about being perceived in the US to have been right about everything...not about oil, etc. etc. Yech.
"I am unimpressed with Obama's promise to make Nato countries contribute more troops."
Obama has been pushing for more war, for a forever war, in Afghanistan and Pakistan month after month. I am appalled.
ref : “security agreement being negotiated by Iraq with the Bush administration”
Quite well-written article by Gregory Bresiger, “The Bricker Amendment: A Battle against the Imperial Presidency” puts into historical context our most pressing dilemma...
...that perpetual war, Over There is a state -of- mind folie à deux ‘collective angst’ = base anger & fear means propagated by mis-leaders on their populace to enable a Unitary Executive end, Over Here through extra-ordinary, extra-Constitutional WAR POWERS.
e.g., We see this happening today not only by the presumptuousness of "legality" of any SOFA = ‘Status Of Forces Agreement’ negotiated by the Executive Branch (circumventing, say ~ treaties requiring ratification by the U.S. Senate), but also the trillion-dollar ‘bailouts’ = defacto nationalization of financial enterprises, when, indeed: “Federal agencies [of the Executive Branch] cannot spend money [neither for Nationalization, nor for Wars] unless funds are authorized and appropriated [by Congress].”
I confess this is why, given the horrors of IRAQ, or even the horrific scale all Over There of the "Global War On Terror", it remains my humble opinion that the greatest threat to America ~ and Americanism ~ is not the perversion of terror but the erosion of Constitutional foundations Over Here; That basis upon which: from the Divine Right of Kings this new notion of "our nation" was conceived and, god willing, will endure.
"The big sticking point is that the US continues to demand that US soldiers in Iraq retain their immunity from prosecution for crimes in the Iraqi courts.
The compromise on that one is easy: extend immunity only to officers, the junior birdmen of the militant GOP, but let the natives do as they please with the other ranks.
In a pinch, they could settle for only field-grade and general officers gettin’ a free pass.
Happy days.
"The compromise on that one is easy: extend immunity only to officers,"
Oh, how lovely! A nice compromise to allow the United States to continue its imperial project. WTF?!
"let the natives do as they please with the other ranks."
The "natives"?! How 19th century imperialist of you!
How about ending an occupation that should never have begun in the first place?
Post a Comment
<< Home