Iraq Cabinet OK’s Occupation Deal
To the great relief of US military commanders, Iraq's cabinet approved an agreement that would provide a legal basis for the occupation beyond Dec 31 The deal, which still must clear a vote in parliament, maintains partial immunity for U soldiers and calls for the withdrawal of American forces by 2011 Update.
To the great relief of U.S. military commanders, Iraq’s cabinet approved an agreement that would provide a legal basis for the occupation beyond Dec. 31. The deal, which still must clear a vote in parliament, maintains partial immunity for U.S. soldiers and calls for the withdrawal of American forces by 2011.
Update: Iraq’s foreign minister and the U.S. ambassador have signed the agreement.
WAIT BEFORE YOU GO...New York Times:
All but one of the 28 cabinet ministers who attended the two-and-a-half-hour session voted for the agreement and sent it to Parliament for consideration, a huge relief to the United States, which had been in intense negotiations with the Iraqis for nearly a year.
The United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. troops to operate in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and, without an extension of the resolution or a separate agreement with the Iraqis like that approved by the cabinet on Sunday, forces of the U.S.-led coalition would have no legal mandate to operate.
This year, the ground feels uncertain — facts are buried and those in power are working to keep them hidden. Now more than ever, independent journalism must go beneath the surface.
At Truthdig, we don’t just report what's happening — we investigate how and why. We follow the threads others leave behind and uncover the forces shaping our future.
Your tax-deductible donation fuels journalism that asks harder questions and digs where others won’t.
Don’t settle for surface-level coverage.
Unearth what matters. Help dig deeper.
Donate now.
For this retired U.S. Army officer, the president's Thanksgiving visit with the troops has been "triggering" in all the worst ways.
The ACLU blasts the clemency action for Mathew Golsteyn and Clint Lorance as an "utterly shameful use of presidential powers."
Defense leaders express dismay and a resolve to do more to increase resilience in the force.
The CNN pundit appears to be taking his talking points from prominent military sources.
There already exists a proven protocol for the proper use of firearms. Why can’t it be implemented for civilians?
Aggressive, highly trained and hypermasculine Navy SEALs should not be used as the go-to tool for waging global imperial war.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.