BAGHDAD (AP) -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that the government is ready to compromise to reach a security accord with the United States because his country still needs American troops despite the drop in violence.
In an interview with The Associated Press, al-Maliki said neither he nor Iraq's parliament will accept any pact that fails to serve the country's national interests. A poorly constructed plan would provoke so much discord in Iraq that it could threaten his government's survival, he said.
Al-Maliki said, however, that he is firmly committed to reaching an accord that would allow U.S. troops to remain in the country beyond next year...
Answering questions in his office in Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone, in an ornate room once used by Saddam Hussein's son Odai, al-Maliki said a compromise was near on the thorny issue of legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces. He said it would involve an offer of limited immunity for American forces.
"We have proposed that the legal jurisdiction would be ... with the Americans ... when the troops are performing military operations," he explained.
"When they are not performing a military operation, they are outside their camps, the legal jurisdiction would be in the hands of the Iraqi judiciary."...
"If we don't reach an agreement by the 1st of January 2009, the (U.S.) troops will have to remain in their bases," al-Maliki said, "and then there should be a plan for a quick withdrawal.
Al-Maliki said Americans may not be fully aware of the accomplishments brought about by the U.S. intervention in Iraq...
He listed those as - "Establishing a national government following a dictatorship and spreading freedoms inside Iraq after decades of oppression; establishing a constitutional structure inside the country; creating a friendly people toward the United States - the people of Iraq; and probably the most important achievement was to defeat the extremists from al-Qaida and the militias, people who threaten humanity in general. And America has seen the results of what happens when those people are not confronted."
I was wondering if anybody else asked themselves the same question I did when reading this article. Al-Maliki is boasting about the successes of "defeating the extremists" while sitting behind desk in an office in Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone.
We continue to hear from Senator John McCain that the "surge" worked. He repeats it at almost every campaign rally and during the first presidential debate last Friday night. He demanded to hear the word ‘victory’ from Senator Barack Obama, remember?
How can anyone claim ‘victory’ or that something ‘worked’ if there is still violence everyday, if the leadership continues to hide behind a massively guarded Green Zone area? Can Americans or even Iraqi’s for that matter, walk freely in Baghdad now? How about the rest of the country? The answer is ‘no’.
All the ‘surge’ did is help to weed out the really bad guys that were currently hiding out and snitched on by ‘paid’ Iraqis that live in poverty. Will money continue to flow to these folks and for how long? What will happen if money stops? Will these Iraqi’s switch sides once again?
Senator McCain, exactly what ‘is’ your definition of ‘victory’ in Iraq? Give us details please.
I define victory in Iraq when Iraqi's stand up for themselves and ask us to set a time to leave --- which they've done already.
http://coonsey.wordpress.com/