[Peace-discuss] pure arrogance
Dlind49 at aol.com
Dlind49 at aol.com
Fri Feb 20 16:40:15 CST 2004
U.S. Expects Long - Term Troop Stay in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:47 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq
long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet
to work out the terms of a continued presence.
Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday they were confident that the Iraqis,
once given political control, would agree U.S. troops should stay. But some
outside the government question whether that would hold true once an elected
Iraqi government took over.
Anthony Cordesman, a close observer of the Iraq situation as a strategist at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that if political
control was turned over on July 1 to an Iraqi body that is not elected, it likely
would align itself with U.S. objectives and therefore welcome a continued
U.S. military presence. But once elections were held, the U.S. role would be in
doubt, he said.
If the new Iraqi government decided it wanted American forces to leave, ``We
would certainly be obligated to leave, under international law,'' Cordesman
said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, told
reporters at the Pentagon that there is a ``fairly confident belief'' that most
Iraqis accept the U.S. view that American troops will be needed over the long
haul to ensure a stable transition to democracy.
The basis for a continued U.S. military presence under the authority of a
transitional Iraqi government is ``being developed,'' Di Rita said without
elaborating.
``I think there's a fairly comfortable understanding that the coalition has a
lot to offer with respect to continued security in Iraq,'' Di Rita said, and
``that people in Iraq understand that (and) want the coalition to continue to
be involved in security in some way.''
Di Rita did not define the roles that U.S. troops would play once the
occupation ended. Other officials have said troops will be needed to guide the
development of Iraqi internal security forces as well as build an Iraqi army that is
capable of defending against external threats.
U.S. troops also will be engaged in combat as long as the insurgency remains
active.
The legal basis for U.S. troops operating in any foreign country is normally
spelled out in a legal arrangement called a status of forces agreement, which
defines legal protections for U.S. troops accused of crimes in that country.
Without it, U.S. troops in Iraq would be subject to local Iraqi law, once the
U.S. occupation authority is ended and a government is restored.
``That would be untenable,'' Cordesman said.
At this point it is unclear whether American authorities can work out such a
complex legal agreement by June 30, when some form of transitional Iraqi
government is due to take control.
Cordesman said U.S. officials at one time had hoped to have such an agreement
worked out by this month, but that proved impossible because ``there is no
clear government to work with.''
The U.S. plan is to gradually move responsibility for security into the hands
of the Iraqis, thereby reducing the U.S. military's role. But senior
officials say that process will take many months, if not years.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Bush
administration has a plan to accelerate the building of viable Iraqi security
forces, which now number over 200,000 and include police, border guards, a civil
defense corps and guards for certain key facilities.
``We're going to focus on Iraqi security forces like we've never really
focused on them before, and you'll see some of that come out in the next week or so
as we try to ensure we have unity of effort on the equipping and training and
mentoring of Iraqi security forces,'' he said.
Even while the Bush administration works toward its goal of restoring Iraqi
sovereignty by July 1, U.S. troops are dying at a rate of more than one a day.
They are opposed by an insurgency that U.S. commanders say is aimed at
preventing a stable Iraqi government from taking root.
Myers said he could not estimate with confidence how long U.S. troops will be
needed in Iraq.
``I really do believe it's unknowable,'' he said. ``If I gave a good
professional estimate, then that would be a standard that people would point to and,
knowing that we can't know it perfectly, we'd get hammered.''
For planning purposes, the Army is assuming it will have to keep roughly
100,000 troops in Iraq for at least another two years, the Army chief of staff,
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told Congress recently.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list