"We have agreed to retain more than 5,000 American trainers, without giving them "immunity," Talabani said. "We have sent them our agreement to retain this number and are awaiting their response: yes or no."
Last week, Iraqi officials, including Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, released a statement that said they'd agreed to ask for U.S. trainers but wouldn't submit the deal to the Iraqi parliament for approval and wouldn't request immunity. The statement was without details, and U.S. officials, expressing uncertainty about its meaning, said that negotiations were continuing.
Talabani's more specific statement seemed intended to clarify that, at least from an Iraqi perspective, negotiations were over, and the U.S. was expected merely either to agree to stay on or decline to do so." Miami Herald
-------------------------------
I would expect that this will settle the issue of whether or not there will be American soldiers in Iraq after 1 January, 2012. The American people will never accept the idea that their soldiers would be exposed to Iraqi "justuce."
Poor Ziocons, they will have to really scratch their heads and hold a few conferences at WINEP and AEI to explain this. I can hear the plaintive cries from here. "How can this be? Didn't 'they 'like the freedom?' Don't "they" realize what a debt of gratitude 'they' owe us for their freedom from Saddam? How could this be?"
Actually, this response from Talabani and Maliki (our "friends") is an example of the truth of my comment this week in the National Security Blog of the National Journal.
COIN is a diseased doctrinal shrub that bears bitter fruit. pl
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449098/iraq-says-its-asked-for-5000-us.html#ixzz1aa6Kg3mN
http://security.nationaljournal.com/2011/10/what-happens-after-2014-2.php#2089618
Mt guess is the Iraqis have calculated that American leadership will protect the interests of Lockheed Martin (F-16) and General Dynamics (M1), among others, and grudgingly concede to these terms. And if they don't, there's always Eurofighter GmbH and Nexter.
Posted by: Pirouz | 12 October 2011 at 01:42 PM
pirouz
your guess is wrong. such a decision is politically impossible. american soldiers are not mamelukes. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 12 October 2011 at 02:03 PM
Col: It is because of developments like these that the Saudi Ambassador plot seems so unbelievable....
Posted by: Matthew | 12 October 2011 at 02:19 PM
On the one hand, I've expected all along there would be no SOFA for a large presence of troops (Iraqi politics has made this clear for years). On the other hand, I assumed that some sort of deal would be worked out for 3,000-5,000 trainers on bases along the lines of -- we wont hold you to Iraqi law as long as you stay on the base.
Absent immunity, we won't stay at all. I'm having trouble believing this is the end of the story.
Posted by: DanM | 12 October 2011 at 03:10 PM
DanM-Thank God it's the "end of the story." This story has been unfolding for far too long. The Iraqi government certainly knows its SOFA-less condition is a game breaker and is signalling its intent to chart a new course. Wonder what will happen to the 17,000 State Department employees and the 7,000 Mamelukes guarding them?
Posted by: Phil Giraldi | 12 October 2011 at 03:36 PM
"COIN is a diseased doctrinal shrub that bears bitter fruit"....true enough, true enough. Except, that is, for the people who financially profit from pushing it. Might fruitful for them.
My guess is look for 'contractors' to take their place.
Posted by: jonst | 12 October 2011 at 03:40 PM
Wow...., I wish BO could stick to his principles like Talabani.
RC
Posted by: Robert C. | 12 October 2011 at 03:56 PM
Phil G.
The structure of Embassy Baghdad is clearly intended to support an indefinite viceregal presence. Since this is not going to happen, I would expect to see steady shrinkage in the numbers. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 12 October 2011 at 03:58 PM
I would abandon the huge embassy (probably will be taken over by the Chinese or Iranians) and let Iraq stew for a decade until they again rebuild power projection and take over Kuwait and the Gulf states. And this time no intervention to save the Saudis. Why? Large oil and gas discoveries in W. Hemisphere and soon to be departure of Chavez and the Castro brothers. Thus declining importance of MENA to USA. A troubling spot is Nigeria that is huge supplier to USA and now majority Islamic with Christian/Muslim fighting already evident. Perhaps a partition.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 12 October 2011 at 04:13 PM
Colonel, Phil,
So what will the multimillion dollar Baghdad embassy boondoggle become, just another high-priced taxpayer paid-for potted plant urn?
Posted by: J | 12 October 2011 at 04:16 PM
The Dips will be protected by an army of contractors who are subject to Iraqi law... wonder what the premium on that will be? (Clearly, the Colonel is right).
Posted by: DanM | 12 October 2011 at 04:20 PM
DanM
A fortresslike presence to house a gaggle of diplomats who are protected by an army of mercenaries armed with light weapons is an untenable concept. Baghdad is a long way from friendly territory or the sea. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 12 October 2011 at 04:44 PM
Large oil and gas discoveries in W hemisphere are probably a dream except if one talks of SHALE GAS & OIL, where the deplation rate is almost logarithmic, depending on never ending new wells and fracking. It appears that this is not fiancially or ecologically possible [see Texas just restricted fraking for lack of H2O].
Do not put too much into the iminent departure of either the Castro brothers [they do not have too much oil] as their policies of gradual change will not effect US interest. It is unlikely that the poor of Venezuela are intersted in giving their pil to Uncle Sam, especiually as almot the whole world is intersted snd already invested in the Orinico Heavy oil play, which is larger than Saudi's total according to Saudi sources[and the US Geographical Survey]- it is also expensive in Energy out for Energy invested! Do recall that Brazil is a net importer [notwithstanding their ethanol production] as their deep sea prospects are slow to come to production.
The problem of oil is not [at present] that there are no prospects, it is the problem of marginal cost, a cost which is so large as to put OECED countries in to recession alreaqdy, without Canadain Tar Sands being a big player [2m per dqay at new cost of 80+ per barrel and lot of water, gas].
It does appear that China can grow at $110 per barrel, while USA has great problems when WTI is over $80 - even as Lousinana light oil is trading Noprth of $100.
Posted by: Norbert M Salamon | 12 October 2011 at 05:15 PM
NMS
All right, you have convinced me. We will just have to take yours. Sorry. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 12 October 2011 at 05:21 PM
Colonel:
I am aware of that possibility lot of international players in Alberta. The problerm is building the infrastructure [see the mess with Idaho and parts tranfer] a very expensive proposition, and long time in realization. The best prognosis is of slow incremental growth, while conventional oil is declining. Please NOTE WELL CANADA IMPORTS almost as much as it exports -so Uncle sam could not get too much, even if she tried.
The problem is global, the solution must be also global, wherein the USA [espcially. but most of Europe also [as also Canada] has to curtail use in short order apprecitaveli so, , to allow for transition.
Posted by: Norbert M Salamon | 12 October 2011 at 06:48 PM
NMS
Think about statehood. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 12 October 2011 at 07:14 PM
NMS
If Canada wants to poison Alberta's water supply by fracking to allow a company to make some excess profits more power to you - just don't poison mine.
Posted by: Fred | 12 October 2011 at 09:31 PM
NMS
If Canada wants to poison Alberta's water supply by fracking to allow a company to make some excess profits more power to you - just don't poison mine.
Posted by: Fred | 12 October 2011 at 09:31 PM
Amen.
Posted by: Fred | 12 October 2011 at 09:32 PM
http://www.uspolicy.be/headline/remarks-world-bank-high-level-meeting-afghanistan
Hillary's not going to let us leave Iraq.
The very serious children with I.Q.'s
of a raisin at the State Dept have come
up with a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq....
according to them it will be the largest
Re Building venture since the original
Marshall Plan.
With typical gov employee reasoning they figure the savings from withdrawing troops can now be spent on private contractors to re build Iraq's infastructure.
I can't comment further on this or I'd be booted
off for profanity.
Posted by: Cal | 13 October 2011 at 01:20 AM
Bingo...see my link below.
Posted by: Cal | 13 October 2011 at 01:22 AM
Colonel, I have to wonder whether it's worth having an Embassy in Baghdad at all for the US at present. Once American forces depart is Baghdad not likely to go from being merely unfriendly territory for US diplomats to downright hostile and dangerous. As to the mercenaries "protecting" those diplomats and the embassy are they not more likely to be a source of insecurity than of protection? There are a lot people in Baghdad to say nothing of governorates such as Anbar who have scores to settle with mercenaries.
markfromireland
Posted by: markfromireland | 13 October 2011 at 08:00 AM
Hmmm, sounds like an argument for a riverine patrol force on the Tigris and Euphrates to protect the diplomatic presence, Where is PANAY now that we need her?
Posted by: Basilisk | 13 October 2011 at 09:46 AM
Sir,
What's the probability that these "conditions" are merely intended for internal consumption, to placate the Iraqi public opinion, while the actual conditions (negotiated behind the scene) will turn out to be very different in practice?
I don't think there is any official immunity for CIA-affiliated agents in Pakistan, but that didnt' prevent the US from repatriating Raymond Davis (and his apparently intractable road rage problems).
Posted by: toto | 13 October 2011 at 10:47 AM
There is definitely a bit of unease among those in the U.S. Mission right now, everybody wonders what might happen if the troops go, or if the troops stay, given Moqtada's threats. It's more difficult for civilian security convoys to move every day, licensing checks and changes to policy are asserted every day at checkpoints. Staff in the embassy are holed up in the embassy compound; they don't even get out in the Green Zone much anymore.
There are now ten Iraqi convoys of armored vehicles for every expat one: the Iraqi personal security guards have adopted all of the driving techniques, hand gestures and mannerisms of Americans in Triple Canopy.
I still think some troops will stay, at least some cadres of special operations forces rotated in and out of places like Balad, Al Asad, or Basra. Their presence can be classified.
As much as Iraqis are sick of Americans, I think Maliki feels some presence is a useful hedge to all of the militias, terrorists and generals who might bother him.
The next four months will be "interesting."
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 13 October 2011 at 01:46 PM