U.S. Nears Deal To Keep Troops In Iraq

(CBS/AP)  Iraq's foreign minister said Tuesday the U.S. and Iraq were close to a deal to keep U.S. troops in the country next year, but it would take "bold political decisions" to overcome the final hurdles.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari made the comments to reporters at a press conference with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.

Zebari said the two sides were "very close" to an agreement to replace the U.N. mandate that expires this year.

But he added that the issue needs "some bold political decisions." He said he expected "hectic political meetings here in Baghdad" to determine the fate of the agreement.

Meanwhile, a top Iranian military official urged Iraq to reject the proposed U.S.-Iraqi security deal, calling the agreement a "disgrace."

Gen. Masoud Jazayeri's comments came Tuesday as Iraq's parliamentary speaker arrived in Tehran to discuss the deal and as Zebari spoke with Negroponte in Baghdad.

Iran, which is close to Shiite parties who dominate Iraq's government, has repeatedly expressed its opposition to any security deal that allows American forces to remain in neighboring Iraq. Tehran contends that the American presence is the cause of instability in Iraq and the region.

"The Iraqi people won't be deceived by propaganda and the psychological warfare launched by the U.S. and its allies to pressure the Iraqi government to approve the security deal," Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff at the Iranian armed forces, said in a statement Tuesday.

"Undoubtedly, the Iraqi leaders are careful of any mischief in this regard and won't allow Iraqi history to be stained with such a disgrace," Jazayeri said.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker accused Iran last month of blocking the deal, saying a steady stream of public statements from clerical and political figures in Tehran make it clear that Iran is interfering in the bilateral negotiations between Iraq and the United States.

On Tuesday, Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani told the Iranian news agency IRNA he would discuss the proposed deal with Iranian officials during his Tehran visit. No reports are yet available on the details of the talks.

Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, arrived in Tehran Tuesday using an Iranian plane, a day after his Iraqi plane was initially turned away. Iranian officials said the type of the plane was the reason for not being granted permission to land in Tehran, but they did not elaborate.

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating for months on the agreement, which would set the terms for the future U.S. presence in Iraq for years to come. A main sticking point has been the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops under Iraqi law.

Iran's hard-line newspapers have said the U.S.-cooked deal would "turn Iraq into a full-fledged colony" and have urged Iraqis to oppose the proposed deal.

Supporters of popular Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - who is close to Iran - oppose the accord, arguing that U.S. forces should leave Iraq as soon as possible. Earlier this year, an Iraqi delegation visited Iran to convince Iranian officials to halt their alleged support for Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and urge Tehran not to publicly oppose the deal.

[claydowner]

We have already wasted one trillion dollars in Iraq. Long term costs probably will be three trillion dollars. 40,000 casualties all so that oil companies can drill for oil again after Saddam kicked them out of Iraq 40 years ago. There is no such a thing as victory after such a depletion of our resources. The days of one country occupying another country except in drastic circumstances are over with. The only reward for the occupier is prolonged hemorrhaging of both blood and treasure. You can not impose democracy at the end of a soldier''s rifle. Iraqi''s have been fighting each other ever since Islam was founded back in the 8th century. The Ottomans, British and now the US have not been able to stop it. No one ever will. The only course is to just let the idiots have their civil war and kill each other. Americans need desperately to eliminate foreign imported oil. We need to concentrate on energy independence not counterinsurgency policy.

[k9home2000]

It is time to leave the country(Iraq) we should NEVER have entered and the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ we are spending in keeping this stupid WAR , we needing it here in the USA .It should stay here and be spent here .!!!!Obama you are correct we need this money here and now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cbsblogger]

USA needs to hunker down and cut expenditures and especially on stupid things such as the Iraq War and payments to Israel and Egypt.

[ghs4u]

Iraqis have been fighting themselves since the time of their existence. They apparently like it that way and it is not our job to fix/change it. I doubt we could any way. Hatred existed before we were there and it will after we leave. They like us paying for their ***. They have a surplus. Let them be and do with their own as they will. We need to keep funds in the US. We need not lose more lives where we should not be. We have no basis for a war. I do not feel we are winning anything, but we are losing alot. This is greatly affecting our economy. It is bringing us down. The only precaution I see is the one Iran fears - be close to the border if they attack Israel, or even Iraq again. Then again, how much should we be involved? WW III could be very close.

[nativewoman]

So basically, the United States is begging to stay in Iraq and the sticking point is that the United States wants immunity in order to avoid being held accountable for any atrocities or terroristic acts committed?

Shameful.

[tangouniforn]

JoeCoolSwat1.

What have you done for this country? Social scientists have a category for people like you. Look it up. They are named "Right Wing Authoritarian". Blindly following authority is one of their characteristics. They have little ability to think for themselves.

[bobgee_1999]

(AP) The current plan to abolish the U.S. standing military (http://thomas.loc.gov/) due to the financial crisis, will result in a substantial tax decrease for Americans. It is hoped -- and feared by some -- that this move will also usher in a new era of peace and prosperity in the global community. At a press conference, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated, "The military option will always be on the table. However, war has become too expensive, both in monetary terms and the cost of human lives, for us to rely any longer on conventional military solutions to global issues." Critics have suggested that the U.S. will become more vulnerable to attack as a result of the decision. Harvard political science professor Ferris Nuesbalm believes that just the opposite is true.

"Volunteer and draft options will likely be utilized in times of conflict, as was originally intended by the framers of the Constitution," says Nuesbalm. "All this decision means in the overview is that the U.S. will no longer have access to military solutions as a first recourse. I see it as a healthy move, toward peaceful relations with other nations and more meaningful diplomacy."

[tangouniforn]

Time to get the hell out!

--------------------------------
----------------------------------------
--------
Posted by TangoUniforn at 04:45 PM

When the war is completely won, and the Iraqi''''s can control their country, we''''ll pull out, but not sooner


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JoeCoolSwat1 at 05:58 PM : Oct 07, 2008
+ report abuse
_____________________________________________________
This comment is another one of non answers so typical of this group of neo-cons. How will you know when Iraqis are able to control their country?

[tangouniforn]

Posted by jamster31 at 05:19 PM

No need to be there? we need to be there, to finish and win the war....we are very close to victory, to pull out now at the very end would be disasterous


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JoeCoolSwat1 at 05:57 PM : Oct 07, 2008
+ report abuse
________________________________________________

Please, please tell me how you define "wining". Do you plan on signing a peace treaty to show the end of the conflict? If so, with whom are you going to sign it? Is it when no one in Iraq hate us? As long as there are any Iraqi left that remember the invasion, they are going to hate us. We could eliminate every Iraqi in Iraq. That way there would be no Iraqis in that country to hate us and will us ill. Of course there would be a lot of people in the world that would hate us. So please tell me how it will end.

BTB most of my adult life I spent voting republican. After reading the lack of intelligence exhibited by this generation of republicans, I regret every vote for them that I made.

[ajmarine111]

If Bush and the neo-cons had left Saddam alone there would not be an Iranian nor Iraqi problem now. The fact that Saddam is gone is a good thing but the price that we and the Iraqis are paying it too great.
Over 4,150 US military died on Iraqi soil, over 1,000,000 more Iraqis dead than would have died because of our presence there. Remember "thou shalt not kill".

Posted by TangoUniforn at 04:54 PM : Oct 07, 2008


This is something I saved from a time ago, it might fit here:



"Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards'' new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out," Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Wouldn''t we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers."