Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US-Iraq security pact

  1. Jun 13, 2008 #1
    Since there's no thread about this yet:

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gK64eeNme-jyZF-g9qsIQhGe64vA [Broken]

    That's an understatement! Check out this report from the National Security Archive about a newly-declassified military powerpoint from 2003(!):


    & of course since that was drafted in 2003, it wouldn't have specifics like how many US bases & where they'd be, etc, however:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 13, 2008 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is unacceptable.

    That certainly is not freedom - but subjugation - occupation.

    I heard a few weeks ago that some Iraqis and the Iraqi government were objecting to US policies and future plans.
  4. Jun 13, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Either Al-Sadr is reacting to that anger, or he is trying extreme measures to regain control of his Al-Mahdi Army. He stated today that he will start a new movement against US forces.


    Al-Sadr really worries me.

    Edit: I found an article with a bit more detail:


    Apparently, Al-Sadr is re-directing most of the Mehdi Army to humanitarian duties, and he will form a new fighting group to attack "the occupier."
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  5. Jun 13, 2008 #4
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  6. Jun 14, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Al-Sadr is kind of interesting. He has enough popularity among Shiites (the majority) that he could wind up an important leader in the Iraqi government. Making that transistion from insurgent military leader to civilian political leader is going to be a little tricky. I'm not even sure how he keeps his army under control so they only target the occupiers and not the Sunnis. He's kept them under some control for nearly a year, though.

    I don't think he'll turn out to be the guy that brings unity to Iraq. That person has yet to emerge and may never emerge. In fact, that person usually doesn't emerge.
  7. Jun 14, 2008 #6
    Which of those conditions are the most restricting, unacceptable do you think? The ones about law/arrest?

    The US has about 30 bases in Germany, about ten in Korea for instance. %o in a country the size of Iraq seems to be a simple extension.
  8. Jun 14, 2008 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Assuming the conditions are true (I haven't independently verified), the following are clearly unacceptable:

    * U.S. carte blanche to conduct military operations and to arrest Iraqis and anyone else in Iraq without consulting the Iraqi government
    * Immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. forces and private contractors
    * Control of Iraq's airspace below 29,000 feet

    Arbitrary arrest and detention, kidnapping (rendition), torture are crimes against humanity. That would be illegal in the US. It's not acceptable for US military or mercenaries to conduct such activities outside the US on anyone. Most of the people arrested by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan were released without charge, ostensibly because they were innocent.

    The US govt, AFAIK, does not arrest or kidnap Germans or Koreans. What the US proposes in Iraq would not be acceptable in Germany or Korea.

    It's time to stop the aggression.
  9. Jun 14, 2008 #8
    Yes I agree. Of those 3, I find he airspace one to be the least restrictive. I don't think Iraq will be in a condition to control its airspace for quite some time anyway.
  10. Jun 14, 2008 #9
    Why not help them instead of doing it for them?

    I think this will deepen the roots of the US war in Iraq, making it even more difficult for Obama or anyone else who wants to pull out of Iraq.
  11. Jun 14, 2008 #10
    Help them? In what way? By providing them with technology and such? If that is the desire, then the US is far more likely to assist a country that has allowed it to use it's air space, than a country which has denied it.
  12. Jun 14, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think the sticking point on "immunity" is allowing US military or civilian contractors to be tried by the Iraqi court system. The US generally doesn't allow foreign countries to try US military regardless of what country you're talking about. The US military tries its own (Abu Graib and other crimes).

    Saying civilian security firms hired by the US are only subject to US law is going to be a lot harder case to sell. The US will have to quit relying on so many civilian security personnel.
  13. Jun 16, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    By who? Iran? Al-Sadr? Turkey? Syria? AQI?
  14. Jun 16, 2008 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Those go without saying.

    I was referring to the US.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: US-Iraq security pact
  1. US death squads in Iraq? (Replies: 43)

  2. India-US defence pact (Replies: 18)