|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
January 31st,
2008 - U.S. Wants to Keep Right to Hunt Foreign Fighters in Iraq |
|
U.S. Wants to Keep
Right to Hunt Foreign Fighters in Iraq By Lolita C. Baldor Associated Press January 31, 2008 Washington - The United
States, determined to prevent a resurgence of terror networks in Iraq, wants
to preserve the right to hunt down top foreign fighters, as it negotiates a
long-term security agreement with the Iraqis, according to a working draft
described to The Associated Press. While the agreement will not
tie the U.S. to specific troop levels, officials do not rule out including
some broad goals for the U.S. military presence there, reflecting the gradual
transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. The closely held draft
document foresees a flexible agreement that would allow the U.S. and Iraqi
governments to adapt and shift responsibilities as conditions change. That
goal is seen as critical to calming resistance from Iraqis who want their
country free of U.S. control and to giving commanders the room to respond to
changing violence levels. In particular, it could
adjust as attacks increase, decrease or shift to other areas, and as the
provincial and national Iraqi governments progress and take on more security
responsibilities. Several officials with
knowledge of the approximately 15-page document spoke on condition of
anonymity because they were private discussions. As U.S. military and
diplomatic leaders begin shaping their positions for the talks, it is also
becoming clear that they will need to provide greater controls over U.S.
contractors in Iraq and that a blanket immunity from prosecution is not
likely. U.S. officials consider this
one of the more sensitive issues and are expected to resist Iraqi pressure to
make contractors subject to local laws. But, under the cloud of a shooting
incident last year involving Blackwater Worldwide that left 17 Iraqi
civilians dead, the U.S. may need to provide better assurances that security
contractors will be held accountable for their actions. Any U.S.-Iraq agreement will
face criticism from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers say they will insist
Congress review or approve it. Administration officials, who have just begun
to brief lawmakers, say the agreement will not rise to the level of a treaty,
which must be approved by Congress. Called a Status of Forces
Agreement, the document would lay out the legal parameters under which U.S.
forces would operate. It will carve out the military, political and economic
relationship the U.S. will have with the fledgling government of a country it
invaded in 2003 and has occupied for nearly five years. Meetings with the Iraqis
have not yet begun, but the negotiations will coincide with what will be an
increasingly spirited debate - in the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and in
political campaigns across the country - over how many and how long U.S.
troops should stay in Iraq. That debate may peak in
early April when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, returns
to Washington to give President Bush a progress report on the Iraq war and
his assessment of what forces he will need. There are now 157,000 U.S.
forces in Iraq, but that number is expected to come down over the next
several months as four more combat brigades leave the country and are not
replaced. By July there would be roughly 130,000 to 135,000 troops in Iraq,
and the administration has been sending signals that the reductions could
slow or stop for a while at that time. The long-term agreement
would replace the U.N. Security Council resolution that now governs the U.S.
and coalition presence in Iraq. That resolution will expire at the end of
2008, and officials have set an ambitious goal of completing the new
agreement by July 31. According to several
administration officials, parts of the agreement would resemble those the
U.S. has with countries such as Japan and South Korea. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates has said the agreement will not propose permanent U.S. bases in
Iraq. A key negotiating issue,
said officials, will be the need for the U.S. to maintain military authority
to gather intelligence and conduct counterterrorism activities, as well as
ongoing combat missions. The negotiations would likely set out when and if
the military could operate unilaterally and when it would need to coordinate
with, or possibly seek approval from, the Iraqis. "The United States will
want the maximum flexibility possible to have access to locations within Iraq
without it being seen as an incursion on their sovereignty," said
Kathleen Hicks, a senior fellow in the international security program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. Hicks said she believes the
Iraqis will also want the U.S. to continue with border security, since
Baghdad officials have estimated it will be 2018 before they can take over
that job. Also, as long as the Iraqis
lack both the facilities and the capacity to deal with the thousands of
detainees being held in Iraq, U.S. officials said they would likely seek
authority to continue those tasks. Other portions of the
agreement would provide standard legal protections for U.S. troops, who are governed
by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and thus would not be subject to
Iraqi law. Officials stressed that they
don't yet know what the Iraqis' opening positions will be or whether some
issues could be detailed in a formal legal document while others may be more
loosely mapped out. Members of Congress raised
alarms last month when the Bush administration released an outline of the
issues and goals that would be addressed in the agreement. Some officials,
including Democrats running for president, have argued that the document
could tie the hands of the next administration. Administration officials,
however, say that the agreement would merely keep open the option of a
continued U.S. presence in Iraq that a new administration could accept,
reject or modify. Several Democratic senators,
including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Carl Levin of Michigan, sent
a letter to Bush in December saying it would be unacceptable for the
administration to fashion such an agreement with Iraq without congressional
participation. "The American people
should be fully informed as to what we're getting ourselves into with any
bilateral agreement with Iraq," said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., who
held a hearing on the issue last week. Administration officials declined to
participate. Any document that commits
U.S. troops to providing security for Iraq must get congressional review,
Delahunt said. He added that he would prefer the U.N. resolution to be
extended for several months so that the next administration and the new
Congress could address the issue. External link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5503865.html |