Democracy for Vancouver

The war czar has come out of his hidey hole, at the press briefing today with Dana Peroxide:

GENERAL LUTE: As Dana just mentioned, today is an important day for us on the Iraq team, because President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq signed an important document that frames our emerging strategic relationship with Iraq. This so-called Declaration of Principles has its roots in the Iraqi leader’s requests for a long-term bilateral relationship in their communique of August 26th. So the root here really goes back to this communique of 26 August.
…
Today’s agreement is not binding, but rather it’s a mutual statement of intent that will be used to frame our formal negotiations in the course of the upcoming year. It’s not a treaty, but it’s rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations. Think of today’s agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations that will take place in the course of ‘08.

Does this “long-term bilateral agreement” sound to anyone else like a protection racket?

The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that’s very good news, but it won’t have to stand alone.

You don’t want to stand alone, do you, Maliki?

It signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security.

And it signals to Iran that we’ll be right next door in case you want to try anything…funny.

But on questions of a permanent military presence on permanent military basis and in that positively papal embassy compound, Lute is lukewarm:

…U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States. So it’s too soon to tell what shape and size that commitment will take. But you can be sure that that will be a key part of the negotiations that are framed in today’s document.

Q And permanent bases?

GENERAL LUTE: Likewise. That’s another dimension of continuing U.S. support to the government of Iraq, and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year.

Because saying what we’re going to demand now would be bad for Ghouliani.

Q General Lute, first off, is this a step toward a final status of forces agreement?

GENERAL LUTE: We anticipate that one of the dimensions of this multi-dimensional agreement I just described to be negotiated in ‘08 will be something like a status of forces agreement, which would then replace the existing Security Council mandate as the authority by which we operate alongside our Iraqi partners inside Iraq. So we’re going from a multilateral, U.N.-based mandate, if you will, and in the course of ‘08 we want to move that increasingly towards a bilateral setting.

Because we’ve been too constrained by the U.N. mandate. Can’t bomb enough civilians or make as many cross-border incursions into Iran as we’d like.

Q You mentioned the size and the shape or the scope, stuff like that. Will this contain time lines or goals for the withdrawal of troops?

GENERAL LUTE: It is not currently anticipated to do that. What we would anticipate –

Q You’re leaving the door open?

GENERAL LUTE: It’s not that nature of an agreement. What we expect this to do is set a bilateral mandate for the continued presence and missions performed by U.S. troops and other coalition troops, as well, outside of the U.N. Security Council mandate. So what U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them — all these things are on the negotiating table.

For a fuller explanation, read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?

GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it’s not — it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.

So it’s an official document, cosigned by the U.S. and Iraq on the status of their long-term relationship under the supervision of the Department of State, to keep U.S. troops deployed overseas indefinitely, but that doesn’t rise to the level of a treaty? Ever read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, General?

And, finally, on the sad loss of Poland and Australia from the Coalition of the Cooties:

Q Thank you, General. When you talk about Iraq not going it alone and depending on the United States, I can’t help but think how just two allies in the coalition of the willing, Poland last month and yesterday Australia, elected governments that were going to take steps to completely withdraw their participation. This has been a pattern in other elections around the world. …

Q Why is that? Why?

GENERAL LUTE: Why are they doing it? I think they see it in their interests. I mean, fundamentally, states like Australia and Poland and others don’t commit their troops lightly, so I’m sure that they view this in their own interests…

As do most Americans, General.

It’s tragic that career military men like yourself don’t see it the same way.

[emphasis added.]