THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

revel wrote:

... I posted a few days ago an article about UN saying Iraq conditions are improving. I have said myself that the conditions are improving in Iraq numerous times on various threads. So; do I get a cookie or what?
...

You get my respect for sure!

...
I do hope ... whomever is elected in November will see that a free and independent Iraq with a lawfully elected government and the US forces leaving with honor, not in defeat, is the only honorable goal at this time. We serve neither honorably if we leave Iraq to the mercy of somebody even more evil than Hussein.

The most important way that American power can be exercised at this juncture is not through the exercise of military power but through the ability of the United States to shape international institutions. John Ikenberry has argued that this was precisely the way that the United States exercised its then-dominant power in the years immediately following World War II. The neoconservatives had a true insight that American ideals and self-interests are often aligned, but they failed to understand that the alignment most often occurred through America's ability to create durable political frameworks through which it could achieve long-term cooperation with like-minded nations.

In America at the Crossroads, FrancesFukuyama points out that the U.S. needs to maintain "international legitimacy" when taking action. The U.S. operations in Afghanistan had international support, but the U.S. actions in Iraq did not.

Quote:

The most important way that American power can be exercised at this juncture is not through the exercise of military power but through the ability of the United States to shape international institutions. John Ikenberry has argued that this was precisely the way that the United States exercised its then-dominant power in the years immediately following World War II. The neoconservatives had a true insight that American ideals and self-interests are often aligned, but they failed to understand that the alignment most often occurred through America's ability to create durable political frameworks through which it could achieve long-term cooperation with like-minded nations.

wandeljw wrote:

In America at the Crossroads, FrancesFukuyama points out that the U.S. needs to maintain "international legitimacy" when taking action. The U.S. operations in Afghanistan had international support, but the U.S. actions in Iraq did not.

Quote:

The most important way that American power can be exercised at this juncture is not through the exercise of military power but through the ability of the United States to shape international institutions. John Ikenberry has argued that this was precisely the way that the United States exercised its then-dominant power in the years immediately following World War II. The neoconservatives had a true insight that American ideals and self-interests are often aligned, but they failed to understand that the alignment most often occurred through America's ability to create durable political frameworks through which it could achieve long-term cooperation with like-minded nations.

Frances Fukuyama is wrong, terribly wrong.

America's influence after WWII was derived from its victories, contributions to the victories of others, and its ideas. It was not derived from Neville Chamberlain and/or Jimmy Carter and/or William Clinton style diplomacy and negotiations.

For America to be influential with other nations in shaping international institutions, it must first achieve victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It must be respected for its tenacity as well as its ability to achieve what must be achieved.

Sistani wants Parliament to Approve Security Pact

Patrick Cockburn has also gotten details of the proposed Bush- al-Maliki security agreement: "Secret Plan to keep Iraq under US Control"

Al-Hayat writing in Arabic reports that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (the leading bloc in parliament and keystone of the government of Nuri al-Maliki) is saying he spoke to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani about the security agreement with Washington. He says that Sistani laid out four points to which any such agreement must adhere:



National sovereignty

Transparency

National consensus

Parliamentary approval of it

Al-Hakim met with Sistani Wednesday evening, along with some journalists. The journalists reported that the grand ayatollah stressed national Iraqi unity in the face of challenges, expressed his concern about the lack of services for citizens, including electicity and water, and said the water shortage was especially harming farmers. He also urged haste in the rebuilding of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra.

Al-Hakim said that his own party felt the current American draft detracts too much from Iraq's sovereignty and fails to protect Iraqi wealth. He said that Sistani did not go into details but stressed general principles. He maintained that in general Sistani shared the concerns of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

Meanwhile,al-Hayat says, Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjani, the head of the Assembly of Experts (Iran's clerical senate), said that the Americans are trying to enslave Iraqis through this security agreement and that the "Muslim nation" would not permit it.

ican711nm wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

In America at the Crossroads, FrancesFukuyama points out that the U.S. needs to maintain "international legitimacy" when taking action. The U.S. operations in Afghanistan had international support, but the U.S. actions in Iraq did not.

Quote:

The most important way that American power can be exercised at this juncture is not through the exercise of military power but through the ability of the United States to shape international institutions. John Ikenberry has argued that this was precisely the way that the United States exercised its then-dominant power in the years immediately following World War II. The neoconservatives had a true insight that American ideals and self-interests are often aligned, but they failed to understand that the alignment most often occurred through America's ability to create durable political frameworks through which it could achieve long-term cooperation with like-minded nations.

Frances Fukuyama is wrong, terribly wrong.

America's influence after WWII was derived from its victories, contributions to the victories of others, and its ideas. It was not derived from Neville Chamberlain and/or Jimmy Carter and/or William Clinton style diplomacy and negotiations.

For America to be influential with other nations in shaping international institutions, it must first achieve victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It must be respected for its tenacity as well as its ability to achieve what must be achieved.

Victory in a legitimate was is a fine thing.

This mess doesn't tick either box.

--Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

--Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

--Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

--Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

--The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

--The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40080.html

Quote:

F*cking idiot Neocons got punked by Iran and Gorbanifar? Again?

When the entire story of what happened during this period is known... the people in charge right now are going to look like the biggest bunch of incompetents who ever existed....

Cycloptichorn

the Iraqi government said it has differences with the United States in negotiations over a long-term security agreement.

The official statement by government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh comes amid growing opposition to the deal among Iraqis who see it as a possible violation of Iraq's sovereignty and are worried about an extended presence of American troops.

Talks "are still in their early stages and the Iraqi side has a vision and a draft that is different" from those being presented by U.S. negotiators, al-Dabbagh said.

He was not more specific about the points but insisted the Iraqi government was focused on "fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq ... and will not accept any article that infringes on this sovereignty and doesn't guarantee the interests of Iraqis."



The spokesman also said it was too early to discuss dates for an agreement and said each stage of negotiations would be presented to the Iraqi national security council.

His comments came two days after tens of thousands of followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took to the streets to protest the deal. Al-Sadr and his loyalists have called for the issue to be put to a public referendum.



U.S. officials insist they are not seeking permanent bases but have not otherwise commented on the negotiations, which the two sides hope to complete by July. The agreement is to replace a U.N. mandate for U.S.-led forces that expires at the end of the year.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said negotiators have made "a great deal of progress" and the government has sent teams to Germany, Turkey, South Korea and Japan to see how they handled the presence of foreign troops.

However, he stressed the situation in Iraq was different because the violence has not ended.

"Our forces and capabilities haven't reached the level of self- sufficiency," Zebari said at a joint news conference with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. "We need this strategic security agreement ... for the time being. But this is not open- ended."

The U.S. military, meanwhile, faced a dwindling coalition of allied countries providing supporting combat troops in Iraq.

Troops held a ceremony Sunday that included lowering the Australian flag from its position and raising the American flag instead over Camp Terendak in the southern Iraq city of Nasiriyah.

"We have to praise the role of the Australian troops in stabilizing the security situation in the province through their checkpoints on the outskirts of the city," said Aziz Kadim Alway, the governor of the Dhi Qar province.

The Iraqi government already has assumed security responsibilities for the Shiite-dominated province, which includes the volatile city of Nasiriyah. But the Australians remained there to help if necessary while also training Iraqi security forces and doing reconstruction and aid work.

The U.S. military said American troops would temporarily take over those responsibilities.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was swept into office in November largely on the promise that he would bring home the country's 550 combat troops by the middle of 2008, saying the Iraq deployment has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.

U.S. President George W. Bush said in March that he understood the decision and it would not harm bilateral relations.

The Australians had "successfully accomplished their mission" and their contributions "assisted in the stabilization and development of Iraq," U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in a statement.

The combat troops were expected to return home over the next few weeks.

But the Australians said several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia also will leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.

Also on Sunday, a U.S. soldier was killed by an armor-piercing roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, the military said. No further details were released.

A car bomb exploded Sunday in a parking lot across the street from the Iranian Embassy, killing at least two civilians and wounding five people, including three embassy guards.

Elsewhere in the capital, a senior police official was wounded and a traffic cop was killed when a bomb stuck to the official's car exploded in a busy intersection.

Two civilians also were killed in separate roadside bombs in the area of Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

The violence was reported by officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

In another development, a U.S. helicopter crashed Sunday south of Baghdad, wounding the two American soldiers who were aboard, the military said. The military said the crash was being investigated but appeared to be due to mechanical failure.

Iraqi PM assures Iran on security


Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.


Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

The role of the US in Iraq is high on the agenda, with Tehran concerned about a treaty under discussion on the terms of the US military's future in Iraq.

Iran's alleged backing for militants in Iraq was also expected to be discussed.

'Peace and security'

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours," Iranian state-run media quoted Mr Maliki as saying after late-night talks with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

In his talks with Mr Ahmadinejad, Iranian media quoted Mr Maliki as saying: "A stable Iraq will be a benefit to the security of the region and the world."


Mr Ahmadinejad told Mr Maliki: "Iraq's neighbours have more responsibility to help the country to establish peace and security."

Without referring directly to the US-Iraqi deal, Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying: "Iraq must reach a certain level of stability so that its enemies are not able to impose their influence."

A statement from Mr Maliki's office in Baghdad said economic and trade issues were high on the agenda.

"Iraq is looking forward to Iranian companies taking part in developing its infrastructure," Mr Maliki is quoted as saying.

The BBC's John Leyne, in Tehran, says Iran has made no secret of its opposition to the current negotiations going on between Iraq and the US, which are aimed at regulating the presence of US forces in the country after their UN mandate expires at the end of 2008.

The US-Iraqi talks, which are seeking to reach agreement by the end of July, have run into problems over issues related to Iraqi sovereignty.

The Iraqi prime minister was also expected to raise allegations of Iranian support for Shia militants in Iraq.

Shia militiamen fought bitter battles with US and Iraqi government forces between March and May.

Mr Maliki is on his third visit to Iran since taking office in June 2005.

Government sources say Iraqi security officials with the delegation will be showing the Iranians evidence of their alleged support for the militias, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad reports.

Iran has always denied any involvement, but officials say Mr Maliki will once again urge Tehran to support the Baghdad government and stop secretly backing militias.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7441329.stm

Published: 2008/06/08 15:48:47 GMT