Relations impacts and cp’s

****IRAQ**** US-Iraq relations links: not withdrawing contractors

Download 1.27 Mb. Page 82/90 Date 01.06.2018 Size 1.27 Mb. #52708

Navigate this page:

• AT: Troops key to relations
• US-Iraq relations high
• AT: US-Iraqi relations

****IRAQ**** US-Iraq relations links: not withdrawing contractors Leaving military contractors will hurt relations-Iraq expects the U.S. to fully withdraw BBC 5/4 [2010, BBC Monitoring Middle East – Political, Analysts view Gulf accusations against Iran, mutual distrust - Al-Jazeera TV, lexis] Adil Abd-al-Mahdi = Iraqi vice president The correspondent notes that in addition to the 130,000 US troops in Iraq, there is an equal number of contractors, which the US Administration says will continue to have a strong role after the US withdrawal, and asks whether or not this will harm the sovereignty of Iraq. Abd-al-Mahdi responds: "I have not heard that the contractors will remain, while the regular forces will withdraw. The withdrawal will be complete, and the withdrawal agreement is clear on this matter, in terms of a complete withdrawal, whether they are contractors or regular US forces." Asked if the contractors with civil duties will withdraw, Abd-al-Mahdi says this requires clarification on whether they are contractors for commercial, engineering, civil, or oil companies, or contractors with the US Army. The correspondent says he is referring to those contracted by the US government, noting that the US government says after the withdrawal, the armed contractors will have civil duties in Iraq, to which Abd-al-Mahdi responds: "The US side does not make a decision on this matter. The Iraqi side will decide. Iraq is a country that will regain its entire sovereignty in terms of these matters, and will decide who is or is not to remain on its territories. No other foreign side will decide on such matters. If a decision is needed, agreements will be required." The correspondent asks Abd-al-Mahdi if all the armed contractors, which are estimated at 50,000, will leave Iraq after the withdrawal of the US forces. The vice president responds that the number of armed men today is greater than 50,000, and is approximately 150,000, which includes the US army. Abd-al-Mahdi adds: "Moreover, there is no secret agreement that would maintain one part and withdraw another. The concept of the withdrawal encompasses the entire US forces, whether volunteers or contractors." AT: Troops key to relations Even complete troop pullout won’t hurt relations-other military and diplomatic ties will create the perception of a security guarantee O’Sullivan, 2010 [Meghan O'Sullivan was special assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration. She is the Jeane Kirkpatrick professor of the practice of international affairs at Harvard University, Washington Post 3/7, After Iraq's election, the real fight, lexis] It is fashionable to argue that the United States has no influence in Iraq anymore. But the reality is more subtle. Certainly, U.S. financial leverage dissipated years ago, when Iraq's oil revenues skyrocketed; similarly, U.S. military leverage was always hard to use, because threats of withdrawal were credible only in extreme circumstances. Yet, although Washington is less central than in the past, it remains influential. The United States is the only party respected, if grudgingly, by nearly all sides. No other entity has the same power to convene in Iraq -- not Iran, not the United Nations. This power can be critical in a crisis or a deadlock. Also, the next Iraqi government will want a good relationship with Washington. Even if not a single American combat soldier remains in Iraq in 2012, the Iraqi security forces will look to the United States for equipment and training. Similarly, the Strategic Framework Agreement between the two nations portends a robust relationship yielding benefits in education, investment, technology and science. Few prime ministers will easily dismiss all that. US-Iraq relations high US-Iraq relations haven’t changed under Obama – they perceive the U.S. as committed BBC 5/4 [2010, BBC Monitoring Middle East – Political, Analysts view Gulf accusations against Iran, mutual distrust - Al-Jazeera TV, lexis] Adil Abd-al-Mahdi = Iraqi vice president Asked if US President Barack Obama 's level of commitment to the Iraqi file is similar to that of President Bush, Abd-al-Mahdi responds: "Matters have developed. The two approaches are different. Otherwise, we would not have a Republican administration and a Democratic administration. The approaches are fundamentally different. In terms of the level of commitment or the level of honesty and follow-up on matters, I think that the new administration is fully committed to what was agreed upon, whether it took place under the previous administration, or now in light of the new agreement; however using a new system and methods that are appropriate for the nature of this new administration." Asked if the new administration's focus on the Afghanistan file disrupts its concern for the Iraqi file, the vice president says: "The nature of the relations could not remain as they were. In my opinion, even if the previous administration had remained, we would have witnessed a change in the relations, because an agreement for the withdrawal of the [US] forces was signed under the Bush Administration, not the Obama Administration." Abd-al-Mahdi says the developments in Iraq are unlike the developments in Afghanistan, where there is a decline in the field, whereas in Iraq, "there is progress on the security, political, and economic levels, which requires a development in the nature of the relations." AT: US-Iraqi relations US doesn’t care about relations with Iraq Washington Post 2010 [2/22, Baghdad's crucible, Washington's disinterest, lexis] How odd, then, that Iraq -- where the United States has invested $700 billion and the lives of more than 4,300 soldiers over the past seven years -- is no longer a top priority for the White House, the State Department or nearly anyone in Congress. Two Americans who understand how big the stakes are -- U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill and top commander Gen. Raymond Odierno-- were in Washington last week to explain. Iraq's March 7 election and what follows it, Hill said, will "determine the future of Iraq . . . and also the future of the U.S. relationship with Iraq." Said Odierno: "We have an opportunity in Iraq today that we might never get again in our lifetimes . . . to develop a democratic Iraq that has a long-term partnership with the United States." Compare that with Obama's account of Iraq in his State of the Union address: "We are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. . . . We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August." That pledge means that even while Iraq passes through this crucial turning point, U.S. forces will be reduced from 98,000 now to 50,000 on Sept. 1. Obama went on to say that the United States would support the elections and would "continue to partner with the Iraqi people." But it's hard to escape the impression that a president who built his campaign on opposition to the war still undervalues Iraq's enormous strategic importance and the dangers embedded in its political transition. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.27 Mb. Share with your friends: