His anyone read this story? It seems that there is NO exit from Iraq. The plan is temporary, but will the next president honor it?
A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.
The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked “secret” and “sensitive”, is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to “conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security” without time limit.
The authorisation is described as “temporary” and the agreement says the US “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq”. But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces – including the British – in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…
It will be interesting to see if this is addressed by the candidates on their stump speeches about Iraq.
1 comments
Permanent = to infinity, to the end of time. We won’t be there that long. Oh, and don’t forget … the US does not torture. Little plays on words like these have always bothered me. We have our definitions and they have theirs.
Yes, that’s been the intent all along. The huge embassy, the largest on the planet, and those “enduring” (but not permanent) bases should have been obvious clues. At least McCain is honest about it.
Unless the empire is brought to it’s knees we’ll be in Iraq for a long time to come. The occupation will be long (but not permanent).