Iraq May Hold Referendum on American Troop Presence

[nopasties]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081700949.html

BAGHDAD, Aug. 17 -- The Iraqi government announced Monday that it intends to let voters decide in January whether the departure of U.S. troops should be accelerated.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet is submitting a draft law to parliament asking it to authorize and fund a referendum on the bilateral agreement that regulates the presence of U.S. troops, the government announced.
The referendum would be held during January's national election.
U.S. officials have quietly lobbied the Iraqi government to suspend plans to hold the referendum, because they're all but certain voters would annul the agreement.
If that were to happen, U.S. troops would have one year to depart, moving up their targeted December 2011 withdrawal date by almost a year.
A simple majority opposed to the agreement would be enough to annul it, according to the cabinet's draft law, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement.
When the security agreement was negotiated last year, some lawmakers demanded that its implementation on Jan. 1 be followed by a referendum. The referendum was supposed to happen in July, but the government took no action, leading American officials to believe it would never happen.


But Shiite politicians and some Sunnis, including vice president Tariq al-Hashemi, expressed support for the referendum in recent days.
It is unclear how quickly parliament might act on the bill.
Parliament has yet to pass a law to regulate other aspects of the upcoming election, which is seen as a priority. Any measure to curb American influence in Iraq is likely to appeal to a large segment of the electorate.
A poll commissioned by the U.S. military earlier this year found that Iraqis expressed far less confidence in American troops than in the Iraqi government or any of its security forces.
Twenty-seven percent of Iraqis polled said they had confidence in American troops, according to a Pentagon report presented to Congress last month. Comparatively, 72 percent expressed confidence in the national government; 87 percent expressed confidence in the Iraqi army and 83 percent expressed confidence in the Iraqi police.
Bahaa Hassan, a mobile phone storeowner in Najaf, south of Baghdad, said he would vote for a speedier withdrawal.
"We want to get rid of the American influence in Iraq because we suffer from it politically and economically," he said. ""We will vote against it so Iraqi will be in the hands of Iraqis again."
Many Iraqis, however, particularly Sunnis and Kurds, see the presence of the U.S. military as a key deterrent to abuses of power by the Shiite-led government.
"After six years of Shiite ruling and struggle, we still have no electricity, so what will happen if Americans leave?" said Dhirgham Talib, a government employee in Najaf. "The field will be left to the Shiite parties to do whatever they want with no fear from anybody."

Is this a good idea?

[Amry]

Yes. For their own sake, Americans should get out of Iraq, the whole place is a financial black hole.

Of couse, I doubt that the American troops would go just because the Iraqis told them to, though.

[mrmouth]

Of couse, I doubt that the American troops would go just because the Iraqis told them to, though.

What do you base that on? We cannot patrol without consent, and escort. And yes, if the Iraqi Government asked us to leave, of course we would. And there are many who are ready to pack it in. Nobody likes being dicated to, after having shed blood, and countless billions of dollars to help keep Iraq from becoming a failed state.

The Iraqi people had better think really hard about the possible consequences of doing so, though. There still very much needs to be a middle man.

On a positive note, after Sunni insurgents have stepped up attacks on Shiite civilians, Shiite religious leaders have come out and stated that there will be no response, no matter how bad it gets.

[Amry]

What do you base that on?

I am making an assumption that if the US doesn't plan on staying in Iraq for long, they wouldn't bother building the multi-billion dollar "enduring bases" all around Baghdad and central / southern Iraq.

We cannot patrol without consent, and escort.

Consent can only be given by the Iraqi government, yes, but don't you think the US have a great amount of influence on the Iraqi government? After all, if the US says "no", what will Nuri al-Maliki (the Iraqi PM) do? And the fact that the US support is the one that is propping the Iraqi government does not escape notice from anyone.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the US involvement in Iraqi politics is a bad thing (if it prevents the thing from taking the "Afghanistan clusterf- route, all the better), it's just that I think it's naive to think that the US military is beholden to the Iraqi government. It's the other way round.

[mrmouth]

Consent can only be given by the Iraqi government, yes, but don't you think the US have a great amount of influence on the Iraqi government? After all, if the US says "no", what will Nuri al-Maliki (the Iraqi PM) do? And the fact that the US support is the one that is propping the Iraqi government does not escape notice from anyone.

The influence we have overall, is greatly overrated. In terms of patrol or raid requests, they are constantly being turned down.

If Iraq asked us to leave, this would be a global story, so do you honestly see the Obama administration thumbing its nose to the world, and telling Iraq as a whole, "screw what you want, we are staying"...?

And when I say leave, whenever we do, of course the US is going to keep a sizable advisor element, likely tossed in with the what will surely be a very sizable diplomatic security force. I mean, as long as diplomatic relations exist, Iraq would continue to be a deployment spot for SF, in a counter terror role.

US conventional forces, unless they are training the IA, are largely in a stand down mode in the large and midsized population centers. Sometimes they joint patrol, raids, etc. But the days of scheduled patrols, etc, are over, for now. And if Iraq remains largely peaceful, in the sense that what is going on now, is a low level insurgency, conventional troops will indeed leave Iraq. And the only thing left behind, as I said, will be SF advisor groups, diplomats, diplomatic security, and the guys who go bump in the night, kept on a very tight leash.

[Caelius]

I don't know, Camp Victory doesn't seem to compare to Bragg/Pope.

And Balad may be busy with planes but it is not a superbase...

Of course it does. The VBC is huge, though I would say that more of its functions have more to do with administrative efforts nowadays than anything else. Camp Liberty (VBC-North) for instance is twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and that place by itself is massive.

LSA Anaconda/Balad is even larger (and really should be compared to Bragg/Pope IMO). Its home to nearly 40,000 troops and contractors, an Army Expeditionary Command, an Air Force Expeditionary Wing, and the entire Theater-wide I Corps Support Command, making it the logistics hub for the entire MNF-I/Coalition.

I would say that the whole "Superbase" label is very hyperbolic though. What exactly defines a Superbase to begin with? It was more of a slogan conjured by anti-war groups who really never understood why such facilities were being built back in '03 and '04.

And you're using an old definition of a FOB and using incorrectly. The FOBs, COBs, LSAs were started during 2003 not during the Surge, and the definition are the larger bases in Iraq that are not designed to be permanent US bases. What you're thinking of are the JSSs (Joint Security Stations) which were started during the Surge. It might help when you argue this if you understand what you're talking about...

I do know what i'm talking about, I just didn't want to go into too much unnecessary detail. You've seen me make enough posts to know that.

You're entirely right about the Joint Security Stations and the Surge, I was lazy and just kept using the FOB nomenclature.

And yes the US is withdrawing from Iraq and not going to maintain a permanent presence.

We're withdrawing a portion of our combat forces yes, I already mentioned that. The insurgency in its previous form is for all intents and purposes dead, so there's no necessity for frontline US forces, especially in the post-Surge environment.

But we are maintaining a permanent strategic footprint. Its exactly what we've done in countries like Germany, Japan, S. Korea. Its inevitable.

We got positions in Bahrain, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and Kuwait that provide us forward power in the Middle East. Iraq is not needed at all.

So? Iraq just provides one more forward position, and a commanding one at that when you consider the threat of Iran. Or US geo-strategic objectives in the Middle East as a whole.

[Kjertesvein]

It can either lead to a crazy (civil) war, between the shiite, sunni, Kurds, Iranians, ..., or gradually recive funding and become a S. Arab state.


Interesting. Not a smart choice, but interesting.

[JP226]

Heh, it's amazing Iraq can even hold a referendum. Shows you really how far they've come.

[LoZz]

im sure that regardless of how this vote goes down the usa could just turn around and say: "bollocks to you we are staying". Not alot iraq could do about that. I see this as a vote earner more then anything else

[Admiral Piett]

Good. I hope that they force Obama to uphold his word. That could restore us a great deal more credibility, especially if we leave if they ask politely.

[Sphere]

The problem is the question of whether the Shiite majority should be treated as the Iraqi majority. The defacto political situation has three separate power structures; The Kurdish Government in the North, the Awakening Councils in Anbar, and the Shia Government in Bahgdad. The Shia population and politicians overwhelming would support a US withdrawl as soon as possible, as they would have a free hand. The Kurds, Sunni, turkmen and other minorities I would suspect are less enthusiastic.

[Justinian]

I hope they ask us to leave.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I think its excellent they are exercising their democratic right to vote that the US military and international personnel allowed them to have. I also wouldn't mind if they kindly asked us to let them alone. The mere fact they can hold this vote proves they are becoming capable of standing on their own.

[Hub'ite]

The mere fact they can hold this vote proves they are becoming capable of standing on their own.

If we leave now I give Iraq 2 months before it crumbles. But what do I know?

It's not really an example of them standing on their own except on paper. When Iraqi arms can back up Iraqi policy they will be standing on their own. That day is coming, and 30 June saw a step in the right direction, at least in the Baghdad area, but beyond empty rhetoric, the government of Iraq needs the local political leverage that 30,000 US troops sitting on the city limits gives them.

And this.

[Admiral Piett]

If we leave now I give Iraq 2 months before it crumbles. But what do I know?

If that happens there's really nothing we can do about it. Our job was to help them rebuild a nation with a democratic central government. If they can vote us out, then we're done. It's the Iraqi government's job to prevent the splintering. Hell, even some Republican candidates in the 2008 campaign favored splitting Iraq up.

[Giorgos]

Our job was to help them rebuild a nation with a democratic central government.

No that wasn't your job. Don't have such a selective memory.

On topic, if the Iraqi people want the US states out, out should they go.

[touchmaster]

No that wasn't your job. Don't have such a selective memory.

On topic, if the Iraqi people want the US states out, out should they go.

What was then.

[Admiral Piett]

No that wasn't your job. Don't have such a selective memory.

On topic, if the Iraqi people want the US states out, out should they go.

I've never been a supporter of the war and I know very well the original intent was dubious. But Obama is not supporting American troop presence for the same reason as Bush. Policies change.

[Ateup]

It's not really an example of them standing on their own except on paper. When Iraqi arms can back up Iraqi policy they will be standing on their own. That day is coming, and 30 June saw a step in the right direction, at least in the Baghdad area, but beyond empty rhetoric, the government of Iraq needs the local political leverage that 30,000 US troops sitting on the city limits gives them.

[A pimp named Slickback]

What a dishonor for the Iraqis. Drive the infidel dogs into the marshes of Basra I say! Don't ask!