Iraq cabinet backs US troops deal

[Magno]

The Iraqi cabinet has approved a security pact with the US governing the future presence of 150,000 US troops in the country, officials have said.
Under the deal, US troops will withdraw from the streets of Iraqi towns next year, leaving Iraq by the end of 2011.
The decision will need to go before Iraq's parliament for a final vote.
America's National Security Council welcomed the cabinet's vote, saying it was "an important and positive step" towards stability and security. The pact is necessary to determine the role of US military forces in Iraq after their UN mandate expires on 31 December 2008.


According to Mr Dabbagh, the agreement's terms include:

• placing US forces in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government
• US forces to leave the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of 2009
• US forces to hand over their bases to Iraq during the course of 2009
• US forces to lose the authority to raid Iraqi homes without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government.

What are all your thoughts considering the fact that Obama's plan to retire troops from Iraq in 16 months will not happen.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7731971.stm

[Captain Jin]

That was obvious, we knew that even if he came to the Presidency he would follow the plan that Petraeus has already been doing. It's stupid to come in and screw up what your commander has going on, especially when the success is so obvious.

Things are being done the right way. I don't care if Obama doesn't get us out in 16 months.

[SorelusImperion]

I am glad as it is an important step towards a stable Iraq. Handing over authority over US troops in Iraq to the Iraqi government will give it more legitimacy. While I assume that this authority will be somewhat limited it represents an important change of status for the US troops which no longer would be an occupying force but more of an Expeditionary Corps.

placing US forces in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government
US forces to leave the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of 2009
US forces to hand over their bases to Iraq during the course of 2009
US forces to lose the authority to raid Iraqi homes without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government.

[Каие]

The Iraqi cabinet has approved a security pact with the US governing the future presence of 150,000 US troops in the country, officials have said.
Under the deal, US troops will withdraw from the streets of Iraqi towns next year, leaving Iraq by the end of 2011.
The decision will need to go before Iraq's parliament for a final vote.
America's National Security Council welcomed the cabinet's vote, saying it was "an important and positive step" towards stability and security. The pact is necessary to determine the role of US military forces in Iraq after their UN mandate expires on 31 December 2008.


According to Mr Dabbagh, the agreement's terms include:

• placing US forces in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government
• US forces to leave the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of 2009
• US forces to hand over their bases to Iraq during the course of 2009
• US forces to lose the authority to raid Iraqi homes without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government.

What are all your thoughts considering the fact that Obama's plan to retire troops from Iraq in 16 months will not happen.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7731971.stm

This seems complimentary to both public opinion in all countries and Obama's and Browns previous promises.

That was obvious, we knew that even if he came to the Presidency he would follow the plan that Petraeus has already been doing. It's stupid to come in and screw up what your commander has going on, especially when the success is so obvious.

Things are being done the right way. I don't care if Obama doesn't get us out in 16 months.

Patreus isn't the Commander in Iraq anyway, and he sure as hell ain't commander in Chief. The same way it was the President who decided to have the war in the first place it's the President who can decide to go home.

[Caelius]

This seems complimentary to both public opinion in all countries and Obama's and Browns previous promises.

Its actually Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's promises.

Give credit where credit is due. Obama and Brown had nothing to do with this.

Patreus isn't the Commander in Iraq anyway

No, he's just the Commander in Iraq's Boss.

and he sure as hell ain't commander in Chief.

Neither is Obama, and just because he has that title doesn't make him the infallible or unaccountable to the advice and recommendations from the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.

As i've been saying, if you're looking for Obama to wave his hand and somehow overrule the Generals and civilian officials at the Department of Defense when he comes into office then you're going to be severely disappointed.

The same way it was the President who decided to have the war in the first place it's the President who can decide to go home.

You have a lot to learn about US foreign policy before making such statements.

[Каие]

Its actually Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's promises. Give credit where credit is due. Obama and Brown had nothing to do with this.

I didn't say they did, I said it compliments I.e. fits in with their promises.

Neither is Obama, and just because he has that title doesn't make him the infallible or unaccountable to the advice and recommendations from the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.

However he retains the right to order as he wishes. Soldiers and Officers follow orders from the authority above, and the highest on this hierarchy is the President.

As i've been saying, if you're looking for Obama to wave his hand and somehow overrule the Generals and civilian officials at the Department of Defense when he comes into office then you're going to be severely disappointed.

I don't need to as it seems the Iraqis have green lighted his promise pretty much already.

You have a lot to learn about US foreign policy before making such statements.

No Invasion can occur without the Presidents consent, unless of course the Military did this by themselves right?



Edit: Eh? Where did my post go? Hold on. Let me type it up again.
Edit 2: Done.

[Caelius]

I didn't say they did, I said it compliments I.e. fits in with their promises.

No it doesn't. They never made such promises.

However he retains the right to order as he wishes. Soldiers and Officers follow orders from the authority above, and the highest on this hierarchy is the President.

Generals and Officials can also tender their resignations if they can't in good conscious agree with such orders.

Considering the necessity for good leadership needed for winning the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment the last thing Obama would need is a "revolt" of sorts from the Generals at the Pentagon. Not only would it throw a wrench into operations in both theaters, but it'd also send a strong signal that'd essentially verify everything McCain was saying on the campaign trail about Obama's inexperience.

The POTUS may be Commander in Chief, but as i've said, US foreign policy is more complex than them being able to ignore the counsel of their military advisors in such a way.

I don't need to as it seems the Iraqis have green lighted his promise pretty much already.

It was never his promise. When will you get that?

As a Senator he was never in a position to dictate or negotiate US foreign policy with a foreign government.

It would have been in violation of the Logan Act. In other words: illegal.

No Invasion can occur without the Presidents consent, unless of course the Military did this by themselves right?

As I said, you have a lot to learn about US foreign policy.

No invasion or military action can ever be undertaken by a US President without the consent and authorization of Congress. They are the final arbiters of giving the green light on such things.