Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Background to the Iraqi-U.S. Security Agreements
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The resolution's security section has immediate resonance for the pending Iraqi-U.S. security agreements. It praised "ongoing efforts" by Iraq "to develop Iraqi security forces ... operating under the authority of the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors." Those forces "will progressively play a greater role and ultimately assume full responsibility for the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq."

Since late 2007, the United States and Iraqi have been negotiating the SFA and SOFA agreements, which are another step in the Resolution 1546 process.

According to the Bush administration, the SFA establishes a normal "bilateral arrangement" (sovereign state to sovereign state) addressing the social, political and economic dimensions of the Iraqi-U.S. relationship. The SFA has no closure date.

SOFA runs from January 2009 through December 2011. It calls for Iraqi control of Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and a pullout of U.S. combat forces by the end of 2011. The mid-2009 turnover is in line with the current U.S. conditions-based schedule for turning security in all 18 Iraqi provinces over to Iraqi forces.

According to the Bush administration, if conditions in 2011 warrant a change in the agreement, Iraq and the United States can negotiate a follow-on agreement or "adjust the agreement based on new conditions." The Iraqi government always has the right to request U.S. technical assistance -- with securing control of Iraqi air space being an example of close Iraqi-U.S. cooperation.

Maliki's government believes it has the votes in Iraq's parliament to confirm these agreements. The parliamentary debate on the agreements is itself remarkable -- an open democratic debate on national security in a nation ruled by a murderous tyrant six years ago. The ink-stained fingers pointed the way.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
America is suffering
America is suffering unlawful deception from the Alinsky group.
Group u$urp$ power on January 20th—the constitution violated.
The United States Supreme Court alone can relieve this outrage.

example: Bogus Selective Service System FOIA Registration?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_d id_n.html

Hello New conditions
The democrats won big. They have a Congressional leadership and a president to be who've said that everything about Iraq has been wrong. This agreement is bogus. The new congress said they would be pulling troops out. The new president said we should never have been there.
Why the Heck will it take so long to get a couple hundred thousand troops out? Why can't Obama develop a coalition of the willing to provide the resources and get us out in a couple of months? The answer of course is that they(The democrat congressional leadership)never did want the troops out when they had the call.
The question is will the constituents demand action or be willing pawns to democrat inaction.

Although I tend to agree with the posts which say we should do the responsible (take credit for taking a tyrant out and help develop a free nation and thus stay the course) but the thing is WE DIDN'T WIN. The responsible thing according to the democrats was never get in (though most voted for) and then to evacuate the troops asap.
If their ideas win in a fair election then they should be held to account for making their ideas work.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.