Surely this is significant news. But I couldn't find any reference to Babil on the main pages of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, or USA Today. (Did you know this already? Somebody posted a link in a discussion board to the Beeb article; that's how I knew.)
CNN's top Mideast headlines on its main page:
quote: * Shiite bloc raises concerns about U.S. troop deal * Britain, Iraq to begin troop talks * Tycoon pleads not guilty in pop star's murder * Turkish warplanes bomb Kurd rebel bases
New York Times:
quote: * Iraqi Cabinet Wants Security Agreement Altered * Study Finds Dubious Information Helped Lead to Torture of 3 Canadians
Googling relevant search terms get me stories on the first page from Canadian Press, Xinhua, and something called thaindia, and a bunch of blogs.
Why is the media not on top of this? Surely they don't think it's of no interest to the public! Are they just way slower than the Beeb and the Chinese press, in reporting news about the US military?
...there is also a draft agreement for US to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by June 2009, and from the country as a whole by 2011. http://www.kentucky.com/524/story/558980.html I *was* able to find a variety of articles on this topic, although I'm not sure if I ever found it on page one. (The New York times link for "security agreement" wasn't on page one, and the headline leads the reader to think it's a security agreement rather than a timetable for US withdrawal.)
---
Amendment: Yahoo! News has posted an article now, and linked to it on page 1.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From what I've read about the securite agreement, the Iraqi parliament is unhappy with several parts of it. The US has said that there are some parts open to negotiation still, but they are reluctant to really get back into it, and absolutely reluctant to make major changes. One of the big concessions the Iraqis got from the US was that US soldiers who break Iraqi law when not on duty will be tried under Iraqi law and in Iraqi courts. That was a huge concession from a position of total immunity. They'll still have immunity while on duty.
Part of the changes that they still want looked at I think will hinge around the "conditions on the ground" assessment. There are timetables like what you listed, for 6/09 and 2011, but the US wants them contingent upon conditions on the ground, which is currently in the agreement. Many in parliament want those to be mandatory targets regardless.
We'll see what happens. Bush wants this tied up before he leaves office, and especially before the UN mandate expires. So that deadline is coming up fast.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Maybe people simply aren't that interested in the withdrawal. I heard so much about it over the past years that I thought it *wasn't* just me...but the people I've talked to in the real world really didn't care. They hadn't known, but they weren't curious. (1 or 2 exceptions.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Which is ironic when you consider the number of people against the war, but really I think it's an out of sight out of mind thing. Six months ago people might have been all over this, but the economy is public enemy number one right now, not Iraq. The American public tend to be rather single minded, they aren't good at multitasking at the national level.
I also think a lot of people think that the war is dying down. They aren't hearing about it in the news anymore, and Bush and McCain keep saying the surge is working like it was the be all end all of the war. And news in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be garnering much interest either. People figure electing Obama will just end the war, and that's all there is to it, so why stress over something that'll be dealt with in a couple months?
Personally I think we've seen the beginning of the end. Between this deal and a tamp down in violence, combined with a necessary commitment to a teetering Afghanistan and a new presidency and renewed vigor in Congress, both of whom are against the war, I just think there is too much pulling in one direction for some serious pressure to not be applied for a quick end.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If I had to venture a guess, it's because this is happening on Bush's watch. Assuming Obama is elected, these things will start to be reported as a sign that the change is already underway. I admit this read on it assumes that the media is heavily biased toward Obama. People argue that reality is heavily biased toward Obama. Interesting bit of evidence, this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: If I had to venture a guess, it's because this is happening on Bush's watch. Assuming Obama is elected, these things will start to be reported as a sign that the change is already underway. I admit this read on it assumes that the media is heavily biased toward Obama. People argue that reality is heavily biased toward Obama. Interesting bit of evidence, this.
If he's elected I know we will start to see the press turn on Obama to some extent. Fortunately I don't think this will effect Obama too much seeing as how he has had to endure some of the most degrading comments any candidate has had to endure in his campaign.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I strongly disagree with the decision to allow them to try us....considering some of the things that are considered illegal over there.
Not to mention some of the things considered legal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I suspect that as soon as those regulations go into force, they'll be followed by rules that NO off duty personnel are allowed off base at any time for any reason.
That should make the issue a moot point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I strongly disagree with the decision to allow them to try us....considering some of the things that are considered illegal over there.
Not to mention some of the things considered legal.
Considering what things your servicemen HAVE done and not been tried for I think this evens out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... One of the big concessions the Iraqis got from the US was that US soldiers who break Iraqi law when not on duty will be tried under Iraqi law and in Iraqi courts. That was a huge concession from a position of total immunity. They'll still have immunity while on duty.
Honestly, I think that the issue of immunity is one that has far reaching consequences and that pressuring the Iraqis into accepting it is a bad idea long term.
Long after the crimes of Saddam are forgotten, long after the occupation is over, I think that there will be Iraqis would will never forget the crimes that a foreign occupier committed and never were brought to justice.
Its a normal way society works, its a lot more tolerant of crimes committed by an "insider" rather than an "outsider."
Its going to be bad news for American-Iraqis going forward and bad news for Iraqis that are seen to be complicit in it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Honestly, I come down in favor of immunity while they are on duty and no immunity when they are off duty, for a variety of reasons.
There's just too much going on in the giant combat zone that is Iraq. They're on edge, they're overworked, literally anyone around them could be a suicide bomber or insurgent, and mistakes happen. Under Iraqi law, there'd be executions left and right for the mistakes of US Servicement trying to do right. I think at this stage, far too many servicemen would suffer from false accusations if immunity were rescinded.
No immunity when they are off duty I would hope would keep them on base at all times so they don't have the chance to do anything wrong or be wrongfully accused.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think that that you're right about the consequences of such a move, and yet this is a case of winning the battle but losing the war as far as Iraqis are concerned.
In the end, they won't care about whether the crimes are committed by off-duty Americans or on-duty Americans, they will be American crimes. And the immunity actually will enhance the presumption of guilt. Without a chance to bring anyone to justice, they won't care about carefully picking out the guilty from the innocent, they'll all be seen as guilty as a group.
Yeah, it sucks, and the alternative is pretty gruesome. But thats part of why invading countries is inherently a bad idea.
Edit to add: You have to have the will to lose people, either yours or theirs. And if you don't have the will or have moral qualms about removing excessive numbers of theirs, then you have to be prepared to lose yours while you win hearts and minds. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:In the end, they won't care about whether the crimes are committed by off-duty Americans or on-duty Americans, they will be American crimes. And the immunity actually will enhance the presumption of guilt.
That's probably true, but I'd be willing to bet that keeping Americans on base when they are off duty will reduce their exposure, and perhaps dial down the tension, and also will reduce the chance for anything to happen at all.
quote:Yeah, it sucks, and the alternative is pretty gruesome. But thats part of why invading countries is inherently a bad idea.
I agree.
quote:Edit to add: You have to have the will to lose people, either yours or theirs. And if you don't have the will or have moral qualms about removing excessive numbers of theirs, then you have to be prepared to lose yours while you win hearts and minds. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I think the ship has pretty much already sailed on that. We've been there five years now, and opinion is set. All of a sudden rescinding immunity would only cause a wave of revenge accusations, it wouldn't lead to a new level of trust. Besides, I don't think either side really plans on having this level of interaction for much longer.
I think if we had maybe done that from the start, things would be different, but the cat's out of the bag now, and trying to put it back will just get us scratched up with no real results to speak of.
Plus look at the real ease with which America is villified. Certainly we deserve a LOT of it, but there are millions of former Sunni insurgents on our payroll at the moment, and we essentially told 60% of them that we couldn't keep the stauts qup, and that in exchange for their weapons and coming off our payroll, we'd find them jobs, they said we betrayed them and started denouncing us. Now come on. (begin mini-rant to former insurgents)You guys were trying to KILL us a year ago, and we gave you a paycheck and then tried to find you a job, and for a third of you, we shoehorned you into an Iraqi security apparatus that hates Sunnis (it's mostly Shiite led) and you say we betrayed YOU? It's a load of crap (/end minirant)
We're beyond certain levels of reason now. What's left is to triage as best we can, allowing as much fairness as possible without leaving ourselves, and them, open to unnecessary attacks. It's the definition of an imperfect situation, but we muddle through as best we can.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.
“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.
He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.
...
Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.
Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.
Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.
An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.
“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.
That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.
This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. It would be a political shot in the foot. If any complicity in this kind of agreement is seen as a vote loser now, it will just be seen as worse years down the road as the immune from justice war crimes (real or not) build up even longer.
Its certainly an unenviable choice for the US government (and the Iraqi one).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [That's probably true, but I'd be willing to bet that keeping Americans on base when they are off duty will reduce their exposure, and perhaps dial down the tension, and also will reduce the chance for anything to happen at all.
I doubt it, but we shall probably see.
quote:I think the ship has pretty much already sailed on that. We've been there five years now, and opinion is set.
Opinion is set that the Americans will be seen negatively. All that can be done is to control how badly Americans will be seen. Its not a binary function.
(There is probably a small window of opportunity when Obama gets elected that some small changes in degree that can be made, but if result is pretty much the same old, then it may actually make it worse than no new president.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."
A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.
"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.
Cheery. Try not to drag us into this one too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ha ha! take that, obama presidency! I mean, syrian terrorists!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, like the average American voter is paying enough attention to get anything of value out of that article, or any other article on the subject.
I don't think the average voter will get anything out of this. It's eight days out, and this isn't the "October surprise." Even the Al Qaeda endorsement of McCain isn't a surprise. This close, with the numbers the way they are, it'll take something much bigger, and much simpler than a border skirmish to really change something.
Though not that I read "Obama presidency," I think you mean this has nothing to do with the election, just with screwing up the man's job once he gets there, and yeah, it might, but from everything I've read, most Middle Eastern leaders are cautiously optimistic about an Obama presidency. Hezbollah was looking forward to it until he gave a series of rabidly pro-Israel speeches, but actual state governments are looking on him favorably after 8 years of Bush. It may be that the Bush-Obama handoff could end up being a decade long bad cop/good cop routine, and Obama might end up having more leverage than we've had in 20 years. That could be this cloud's silver lining.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The 13th province was just handed over to Iraqi control; 5 to go.
* Iraqi ministry members hurt in car bombing * Iranian president suffers exhaustion * Israel's Livni scraps coalition talks * Joint operation held in West Bank
New York Times:
* Officials Say U.S. Killed an Iraqi in Raid in Syria * Fractures in Iraq City as Kurds and Baghdad Vie
USA Today's top Iraq stories:
Al-Qaida's route though Syria persists Iraqi militant to hang for GI deaths Iraqis tussle over U.S. pact 15 percent of veterans report sexual trauma Al-Qaida figure killed, 2 held in Syria raid? Baghdad’s blast walls become colorful canvases Americans show Iraqis how to spend money
This can't really be blamed on Americans' disinterest in the war. If we aren't interested in US troop withdrawal, we're certainly not interested in whether someone is putting art on the walls in Baghdad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've seen some of the art. It ranges from nuissance graffitti to really some beautiful murals.
I hope when the walls finally come down, they save some of the more impressive ones. War sometimes has a way of producing something beautiful amidst the chaos, and it's best held on to.