Ah, negotiation in the ME...
After many, many hours of chai and cigarettes, and perhaps an excellent full course meal, things would to get to a point were everybody would seem to be more or less satisfied. The next day I would bump into one of the participants who advise that just one more small change would be needed to get things truly finalized.... :rolleyes:
The negotiation never ends.
Iraq's Presidential Troika Approves SOFA
Little fuss and muss to this final step in the process.
Quote:
Presidency Council Ratifies U.S.-Iraq Security Pact
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2008 – The new U.S.-Iraq security pact that was approved by Iraqi lawmakers Nov. 27 was ratified by Iraq’s Presidency Council today, senior U.S. officials said.
The two-part security pact consists of a strategic framework agreement that establishes the foundation of a long-term bilateral relationship between the United States and Iraq, as well as a status-of-forces agreement that stipulates how U.S. forces are affected by Iraqi laws.
Both agreements will take effect Jan. 1, following the exchange of diplomatic notes. The agreements replace a United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq that’s slated to expire Dec. 31.
“We welcome today’s ratification by Iraqi’s Presidency Council of the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement,” U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said in a joint statement issued today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=52192
GEN Odierno on post - 1 Jan operations
Quote:
New orders for US troops in Iraq after landmark pact
Fri Dec 5, 6:27 am ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) – The top US military commander in Iraq on Friday issued new orders to troops after the Iraqi government approved a landmark military pact that will give it increased control over their operations.
The wide-ranging accord -- which will require all US troops to leave the country by the end of 2011 -- won final approval from Iraq's presidential council on Thursday after nearly a year of intense negotiations.
"US forces will continue to be authorised to engage in combat operations," General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, wrote in a letter to the troops.
"However, under the terms of the new agreement, we will coordinate and execute those operations with the approval of the (Iraqi government), and we will conduct all operations by, with, and through the Iraqi security forces."
The pact -- which will take effect when the troops' UN mandate expires at the end of the month -- will grant Iraq veto power over virtually all US operations.
"We will continue to focus on combating Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, but we must do so with respect for the Iraqi constitution and laws," Odierno wrote.
"But there will not be any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves and the force," he added.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081205...iraqusmilitary
MRAPs barred from Iraqi cities in daylight
Here is a link to a story in today's Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062600301.html
The story states that a new rule will prohibit US troops from using MRAPs in urban areas during the day. I can't understand why such a rule would be implemented.
Could it be the primary purpose of the rule is to increase the vulnerability of US troops going into the cities in the hope that it will make them reluctant to go? It is as if JAM wrote the rule.
Self-inflicted "lawfare" ....
Quote:
from carl
It is as if JAM wrote the rule
Probably not - although that would be a very direct form of Lawfare (by infiltration and subversion) at the operational level. I suspect that it is another example of political (perhaps some policy) considerations driving the vehicle - although someone's military concept of best practices in transition may also have much to do about it.
This ties in with the thread on Afghanistan ROE Change, where Uboat posed an intelligent question:
Quote:
What I have been wondering is, is this policy really General McChrystal's? Or is something that has been quietly dictated to him by someone higher in the COC? Civilian casualties aren't just a liability to our operations in Afghanistan, they are a political liability to our elected officials. Airstrikes in particular look bad on TV. Perhaps it is my cynicism speaking but this could be an attempt to become a more effective COIN force or it could be political expediency.
I've no answer for that one, or for this one. It may be political, it may be military or it may be both - only the flies on certain walls know (not even The Shadow knows - which dates me to late 40s and early 50s radio).