There was lots of conversation on the issue of negotiating with the enemy during the course of the recently-concluded presidential campaign. But has anyone noticed what's going on right now...as I write this?

The generals have reported that "conditions on the ground" are such that the significant downsizing of our troop deployment to Iraq can begin. But apparently there has to be some formal agreement reached on the conditions of our withdrawal with the Iraqi government. That agreement then has to be approved by the Iraqi parliament or congress or whatever they're called. Don't ask me why there has to be such an agreement, but apparently someone in Washington agrees that there does. So we're involved in hot and heavy negotiations with the Iraqi government and other elected officials.

You know...they're the ones even more politically and religiously divided than the U.S. Congress. It's their "congress" that has a higher absentee rate than the worst of our inner-city schools. That's the group who decided to go on vacation for six weeks or so right in the middle of the most critical part of the surge. Remember the surge? That was where we put our young soldiers in harm's way to give the Iraqi politicians the time to reach a "political solution". But how could they reach a political solution? They decided they were all tuckered out, so they went on vacation.

In any event, now we want to bring our soldiers home. But we have to get the agreement of the Iraqis on the conditions of our withdrawal? Forgive my misunderstanding, but aren't they the enemy?

This war was mismanaged at its beginning, in the middle and now, it appears, at the end. Ridiculous!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There was lots of conversation on the issue of negotiating with the enemy during the course of the recently-concluded presidential campaign. But has anyone noticed what's going on right now...as I write this?

The generals have reported that "conditions on the ground" are such that the significant downsizing of our troop deployment to Iraq can begin. But apparently there has to be some formal agreement reached on the conditions of our withdrawal with the Iraqi government. That agreement then has to be approved by the Iraqi parliament or congress or whatever they're called. Don't ask me why there has to be such an agreement, but apparently someone in Washington agrees that there does. So we're involved in hot and heavy negotiations with the Iraqi government and other elected officials.

You know...they're the ones even more politically and religiously divided than the U.S. Congress. It's their "congress" that has a higher absentee rate than the worst of our inner-city schools. That's the group who decided to go on vacation for six weeks or so right in the middle of the most critical part of the surge. Remember the surge? That was where we put our young soldiers in harm's way to give the Iraqi politicians the time to reach a "political solution". But how could they reach a political solution? They decided they were all tuckered out, so they went on vacation.

In any event, now we want to bring our soldiers home. But we have to get the agreement of the Iraqis on the conditions of our withdrawal? Forgive my misunderstanding, but aren't they the enemy?

This war was mismanaged at its beginning, in the middle and now, it appears, at the end. Ridiculous!

Kahuna, normally your posts are clear, concise and I can understand what you are saying immediately but this one has me a bit confused, but perhaps that was to make a point...dont know.

My question is your use of the term ENEMY when referring to the Iraq government or at least that is how I read it, thus not being the smartest guy on the block perhaps you could clear that for me...thanks

When we invaded Iraq, they were our enemy. Their army was our enemy for sure. Probably only some of the Iraqi residents could be classified as our enemies, much the same as the residents of any other country we invaded and defeated historically. Our military has remained in Iraq because of the insurgency mounted by Iraqis with training and financing provided by others. But no doubt, Iraqis were the suicide bombers and IED makers. They are definitely our enemies. A major segment of Iraqis, the Sunni Arabs, were our enemies until we paid off their leaders to stop their sponsorship of the insurgency. Are they our friends now, or will they again become our enemies after our flow of money to them stops? Iraqis elected a government in elections forced by us. Whether they would have ever held democratic elections if not for our pressure to do so is problematical. Their new government is more sectarian and fractionalized than any we could possibly imagine here in the U.S. Are they our enemies? Maybe not all of them, but probably some. But they are definitely not our friends. Broad public opinion within Iraq want our soldiers to leave. Notwithstanding the sacrifices of blood and treasure, the Iraqi people don't want us there. Are they enemies? Maybe not totally, but they certainly are not our friends.

So I ask again: why should we be negotiating with the Iraqi government over the terms of our withdrawal from their country? Is that not "negotiating with the enemy"?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

.........Are they our enemies? Maybe not all of them, but probably some. But they are definitely not our friends. ......
So I ask again: why should we be negotiating with the Iraqi government over the terms of our withdrawal from their country? Is that not "negotiating with the enemy"?

The lines separating "friend" and "enemy" seem to get blurry as soon as there's money on the table.

As an example, countries that get over a half-billion a year or more in foreign aid from the US include: Colombia, Egypt (over $1.5Bil), Ethiopea, Indonesia, Israel (over 2.5Bil), Jordan, Pakistan, Russia (over $1.5Bil), and The Sudan (over $1Bil), as well as Afghanistand and Iraq. There are 24 additional countries which get over $100Mil per year, including Sri Lanka, Mexico, Uganda and Serbia.

Are all these folk our "friends?" Not by a long shot!
Do we negotiate with them continually? Sure we do.
Do they support us within the UN? Only if it suits them.
Would they turn on us if the money stopped? What do you think?

"Bought" friends, no matter who they are, are not friends at all, nor are they alllies when you need them. They are just "fair weather friends" at best. That includes those who have been receiving aid 'forever'.

Kahuna - Maybe I misunderstood the newspaper. I thought the problem was at the end of 2008, we have no agreement that our troops could not be charged with war crimes. I thought they were trying to get that extended. I may have misunderstood.

In about-face, Iraqi prime minister backs troop accord


After months of tough negotiations and multiple revisions, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has decided to back the controversial U.S.-Iraq security agreement that calls for the complete withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Friday.

Al-Askari said the United States didn't give in to Iraqi demands for the power to prosecute American troops but that al-Maliki decided this was the best deal Iraq could get. Currently the draft says that in cases of a major crime, a joint U.S. and Iraqi committee will decide whether an American soldier was off duty and where he'll be tried.

"There is a realization that this is a red line for the Americans," al-Askari said. "They never did it (before) so why will they do it for Iraq?"

http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/891193.html

My understanding is the UN mandate expires 12/31/08. After that date we have no right to be in Iraqi without Iraqi governments permission---we'd become an illegal occupying power. The Iraqi government wants us staying beyond 12/31/08 but wants an agreed upon date by which we's leave----like 2010 or 2011

I'm glad that whoever it was that was negotiating in our behalf told the Iraquis to stuff it as far as being able to prosecute and try any of our military. Who could ever think that a country would invade another, occupy it under force for 5-6 years, and then agree that its soldiers should be subject to the new laws and new judicial system installed by the occupied country? Besides, our Uniform Code of Military Justice is almost certainly a fairer and better system of justice--with harsher penalties, as well--than anything the Iraquis dreamed up a couple years ago.

I also hope that as long as they want us there for another couple of years that we start sending them some bills for our service that they can pay from the more than $80 billion they've accumulated from oil sales.

Now the question is...is this victory with honor?...or simply the declaration of victory before we withdraw...or just a plain old conclusion that we ought to get out of there because it's costing too much in lives and treasure, and there's little more to be accomplished there anyway?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...
...
Now the question is...is this victory with honor?...or simply the declaration of victory before we withdraw...or just a plain old conclusion that we ought to get out of there because it's costing too much in lives and treasure, and there's little more to be accomplished there anyway?

Depends on what the 'war goals" were deemed to be. I'm sure these will be politicized back-and-forth by the pundits and party spinners for quite a while.

For the troops, it doesn't matter. They all know what they did, the honor in which they performed their duty, and the satisfaction each and every one either feels or doesn't feel depending on what they did and saw. It's OUR job not to do them a disservice by discounting their service and the honorable way they performed despite the political fingerpointing and party one-upsmanship which occurred and hopefully will not continue.

There never has been a winner in any war in history. It's always has been a matter of a devil's alternative - who lost the least.

I belive it was Political finger pointing that got us there to begin with. Just need to put and end to it. I Served in Liberation of Kuwait the first time we were there, did what was needed and got out. Your dealing with what most people look at there as a holy war.