The proposed U.S.-Iraqi security pact removes language authorizing Iraq to ask U.S. soldiers to stay beyond 2011 and bans cross-border attacks from Iraqi soil, according to a copy of the draft obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The ban on attacks, I assume, means attacks without prior permission from the Iraqis. As Iraq regains more authority this is natural. Any ally that isn't completely reliant on our forces to fight a war on their own soil would demand this, too.
I don't assume this means there will be no more attacks on other countries from Iraqi soil. Unless the Iraqis are willing to consider brutal murders like this a cost of doing business with Syria or Iran:
Two car bombs exploded in central Baghdad Monday and a suicide bomber blew himself up among police and civilians who rushed to help the wounded, a triple strike that killed 28 people and wounded 68.
In another attack, in Baquba, capital of volatile northern Diyala province, a female suicide bomber killed five U.S.-backed security patrolmen and wounded 11 other people, the U.S. military said.
Police said the bomber was a girl of 13.
The triple attack in Baghdad, one of the deadliest incidents in Iraq for months, took place in the Kasra neighborhood on the east bank of the Tigris River in a bustling area of tea shops and restaurants near a fine arts institute.
Male and female students, many of whom were having breakfast at the time of the strike, were among the dead and wounded, as were Iraqi soldiers and police who had rushed to the scene.
Ah yes, no matter how far down we push our jihadi enemies, they always find time to slaughter innocents. And using innocents to do the killing is always a nice touch when the jihadis write up their annual reports. Good for bonuses all around.
No, the Iraqis won't forbid every American attack from their soil on Syria when Syria continues to support such carnage.
As for the deadline of 2011, would we seriously contest this deadline? The issue isn't 2011. The issue is 2009. If we stay and fight in 2009 and in 2010, the 2011 issue won't matter very much. Holding up an agreement from our side based on this would be insane. Trust me, if 2011 comes up and the Iraqis see a problem, they'll ask to renegotiate. We might not, of course, but if we haven't abandoned Iraq in 2009, I'd guess we stick it out with another presidential election in America looming for 2012.
We need an agreement in 2008 under President Bush to lock in a sane foreign policy of preserving what we've sacrificed to gain in Iraq, and to exploit this success in the future to make even more gains against the jihadis and their ideology in the region.
