Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
USA Today
October 23, 2008
Pg. 10
Operations could cease if agreement isn't reached
By Charles Levinson, USA Today
BAGHDAD — When the clock strikes midnight Dec. 31, the U.S. military's days of operating freely in Iraq will come to an abrupt end — regardless of whether a new long-term security agreement is in place, current and former military officials say.
The U.S. military will face restrictions that could make it extremely difficult for troops to operate effectively if the security agreement, which is being negotiated between the U.S. and Iraqi governments, passes in its current draft form, the officials say.
If Iraq's leaders take a hard line and fail to pass the agreement before Jan. 1 — a possibility that has appeared more likely in recent days — U.S. military operations could come to a halt as soldiers retreat to bases, ground their aircraft and stop supporting Iraqi forces.
"Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations," Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA TODAY in an e-mail. "The Iraqi people would face the greatest impact with regards to their security."
The security deal, which would provide a legal basis for the U.S. presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year, has been under negotiation for months. In its current draft form, it would establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2011 and establish guidelines for how and where U.S. forces can conduct combat operations.
The draft agreement was reached this month, but it has met opposition from Iraqi ministers who have demanded further U.S. concessions.
Ali al-Adeeb, a senior Shiite lawmaker, says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki isn't moved by U.S. threats because he believes he could get an extension of the U.N. mandate at the last minute. Al-Maliki may be stalling, hoping to negotiate with the winner of the U.S. presidential election, al-Adeeb says.
A U.N. extension would require the support of the U.N. Security Council, including Russia and China, both of whom will probably have steep demands of their own, says Lt. Col. James Hutton, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.
Without a legal framework allowing U.S. soldiers to operate in Iraq, the U.S. military would be operating illegally in the country, exposing it to charges of violating international law and potentially creating a public relations nightmare for the United States in the court of world opinion.
The U.S. threat to shut down all military operations in Iraq could plunge the country back into chaos, warns Stephen Biddle, a former adviser to U.S. regional commander Gen. David Petraeus.
"If this threat removes essential military activities in a way that destabilizes Iraq and sets the place up for a return to violence, then it cuts off our nose to spite our face," Biddle says.
Col. Pete Mansoor, Petraeus' former executive officer who retired in August, said a withdrawal could show Iraqis "what life would be like" without U.S. troops. "Maybe then the Iraqis will discover that they need us and will become more willing to negotiate an agreement in good faith," he said. However, he says the United States is pressuring Iraqis to accept an agreement that would make it "difficult if not impossible for our forces to prosecute effective counterinsurgency operations in Iraq."
Biddle and Mansoor say the current agreement would require the United States to abandon some of the most successful strategies of the past 18 months.
The United States would have to withdraw from Iraqi cities by summer 2009, weakening U.S. soldiers' ability to enforce the Sunni-Shiite cease-fire and protect ordinary Iraqis, they say.
"Withdrawing from the cities will make effective peacekeeping very hard," Biddle says. He cited a "very serious risk" that cease-fires could be broken.
The agreement would require approval from the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government for all U.S. military operations, which could hinder the military's ability to intervene if the government itself committed violations.
"We are banking on the goodwill of the Iraqi government to make exceptions to the agreement if conditions deteriorate," says Mansoor, who is a professor of military history at Ohio State University. "But what if the government is causing the deterioration?"
Under the agreement, the United States would need Iraqi court orders to make arrests. U.S. forces target three to four dozen Iraqis each day, according to Mansoor, so Iraq's understaffed and underdeveloped court system could be unable to process warrants in time.
Detainees would have to be turned over to Iraqi custody within 24 hours, limiting the time U.S. authorities would have to interrogate them. That would deprive the United States of one of its most crucial intelligence sources, Mansoor says.
"If everything continues to go smoothly, if the security situation continues to improve, and if Iraqi politics continue to move in the direction of reconciliation, then this agreement could work," Mansoor says. "But if the situation deteriorates and the struggle for power and resources once again reverts to armed conflict, or if sectarian and ethnic violence flares up, U.S. forces will be powerless to intervene and stop it."
October 23, 2008
Pg. 10
Operations could cease if agreement isn't reached
By Charles Levinson, USA Today
BAGHDAD — When the clock strikes midnight Dec. 31, the U.S. military's days of operating freely in Iraq will come to an abrupt end — regardless of whether a new long-term security agreement is in place, current and former military officials say.
The U.S. military will face restrictions that could make it extremely difficult for troops to operate effectively if the security agreement, which is being negotiated between the U.S. and Iraqi governments, passes in its current draft form, the officials say.
If Iraq's leaders take a hard line and fail to pass the agreement before Jan. 1 — a possibility that has appeared more likely in recent days — U.S. military operations could come to a halt as soldiers retreat to bases, ground their aircraft and stop supporting Iraqi forces.
"Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations," Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA TODAY in an e-mail. "The Iraqi people would face the greatest impact with regards to their security."
The security deal, which would provide a legal basis for the U.S. presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year, has been under negotiation for months. In its current draft form, it would establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2011 and establish guidelines for how and where U.S. forces can conduct combat operations.
The draft agreement was reached this month, but it has met opposition from Iraqi ministers who have demanded further U.S. concessions.
Ali al-Adeeb, a senior Shiite lawmaker, says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki isn't moved by U.S. threats because he believes he could get an extension of the U.N. mandate at the last minute. Al-Maliki may be stalling, hoping to negotiate with the winner of the U.S. presidential election, al-Adeeb says.
A U.N. extension would require the support of the U.N. Security Council, including Russia and China, both of whom will probably have steep demands of their own, says Lt. Col. James Hutton, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.
Without a legal framework allowing U.S. soldiers to operate in Iraq, the U.S. military would be operating illegally in the country, exposing it to charges of violating international law and potentially creating a public relations nightmare for the United States in the court of world opinion.
The U.S. threat to shut down all military operations in Iraq could plunge the country back into chaos, warns Stephen Biddle, a former adviser to U.S. regional commander Gen. David Petraeus.
"If this threat removes essential military activities in a way that destabilizes Iraq and sets the place up for a return to violence, then it cuts off our nose to spite our face," Biddle says.
Col. Pete Mansoor, Petraeus' former executive officer who retired in August, said a withdrawal could show Iraqis "what life would be like" without U.S. troops. "Maybe then the Iraqis will discover that they need us and will become more willing to negotiate an agreement in good faith," he said. However, he says the United States is pressuring Iraqis to accept an agreement that would make it "difficult if not impossible for our forces to prosecute effective counterinsurgency operations in Iraq."
Biddle and Mansoor say the current agreement would require the United States to abandon some of the most successful strategies of the past 18 months.
The United States would have to withdraw from Iraqi cities by summer 2009, weakening U.S. soldiers' ability to enforce the Sunni-Shiite cease-fire and protect ordinary Iraqis, they say.
"Withdrawing from the cities will make effective peacekeeping very hard," Biddle says. He cited a "very serious risk" that cease-fires could be broken.
The agreement would require approval from the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government for all U.S. military operations, which could hinder the military's ability to intervene if the government itself committed violations.
"We are banking on the goodwill of the Iraqi government to make exceptions to the agreement if conditions deteriorate," says Mansoor, who is a professor of military history at Ohio State University. "But what if the government is causing the deterioration?"
Under the agreement, the United States would need Iraqi court orders to make arrests. U.S. forces target three to four dozen Iraqis each day, according to Mansoor, so Iraq's understaffed and underdeveloped court system could be unable to process warrants in time.
Detainees would have to be turned over to Iraqi custody within 24 hours, limiting the time U.S. authorities would have to interrogate them. That would deprive the United States of one of its most crucial intelligence sources, Mansoor says.
"If everything continues to go smoothly, if the security situation continues to improve, and if Iraqi politics continue to move in the direction of reconciliation, then this agreement could work," Mansoor says. "But if the situation deteriorates and the struggle for power and resources once again reverts to armed conflict, or if sectarian and ethnic violence flares up, U.S. forces will be powerless to intervene and stop it."