We need a pact that protects our troops, and Baghdad isn't cooperating.This may be an indication why people & nations world-wide are a bit suspicious of U. S. attempts to "bring democracy" to other nations. Doesn't "democracy" imply sovereignty? Just a little? Not per Herr Boot.
This bilateral agreement is supposed to provide authority for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq in 2009 and beyond, replacing a U.N. Security Council resolution that is due to expire at the end of the year. President Bush had hoped to finish negotiations by July, but that deadline seems likely to slip. The problem is that Iraqi politicians are resisting many of the conditions that Washington feels it needs.The absolute nerve of Iraqi "politicians." We all know what a joke "politicians" are, especially when compared to the mighty, manly military Max prefers for problem solving, & when the bastards act as if it's their country or something, well, we can hear the steam coming out of Bootie's ears all the way from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.
Sticking points include whether the U.S. will continue to control Iraqi airspace, whether U.S. soldiers and private security contractors will maintain immunity from Iraqi prosecution, and whether the U.S. will continue to have the freedom to carry out combat operations and to detain terrorist suspects without Iraqi approval. From Washington's perspective, these are measures necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. troops as long as a substantial number of them remain in the war zone. U.S. commanders could not in good conscience continue to fight with too many restrictions on their ability to protect their soldiers and accomplish their mission."In good conscience." If any U. S. commanders had anything resembling a conscience, they wouldn't be involved in the invasion & occupation of a nation that had not & could not threaten the U. S. of A. And the sticking points? Little things like, well, carte blanche to do anything, anywhere in Iraq w/o the slightest repercussions from the duly-elected by all those purple fingers gov't. of Iraq.
So why are Iraqi leaders trying to hinder the very military operations that have been making their country safer and thus strengthening their own authority?New! Improved!! U. S. Invasion & Occupation™, now with Authority-Strengthener™©!!! St. Nick on a fucking stick, Boot "is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations" (i. e., war-worshipping but never serving chickenhawk). How can he possibly believe, let alone state, that occupation forces strengthen the authority of a gov't. that pretty much serves at the pleasure of the occupiers to begin with? And here's the single "compromise" he's floating. (In today's devalued English, it's a "face-saving work-around.")
For instance, while U.S. units now can detain terrorist suspects on their own, those detentions eventually have to be approved by a joint board of Iraqi and U.S. officers. In the future, the initial detention decision could be subject to the oversight of that same board.Har har. "Eventually have to be approved." Just how long is "eventually," especially to the detainee? A lot of "detention" can go on before the board decides not to approve. And we're quite sure that exceptions might have to be made, allowing detentions w/o board approval if, you know, there was the slightest danger that the future detainee might get away before the bureaucracy rubber-stamped the whole mess. And never forget:
But the contributions of U.S. logistics people, advisors, air crews, intelligence collectors and other specialists continue to be as important as ever. It will be years before the Iraqis are able to take over some of these functions.John Sidney McCain III hasn't forgotten. Will it be 100 yrs. before the Iraqis are able to defend their own puppet gov't. on their own? Added Link (11 June 2008 @ 1920 PDT): BTC News has a bit more to say on the subject.