From Senator Biden’s perspective, the agreements made are going to make it more difficult for the successor to the Presidency to change course in Iraq. In his opening statement at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on “Negotiating a Long Term Relationship with Iraq,” Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) expressed concerns that the negotiations and agreements being made now will not be in the same line of “vision” for two of the three presidential candidates. Not all security agreements, he said, are created equal.
"Our presence in Iraq must be governed by international law or a bilateral agreement, and our military and diplomatic personnel must have appropriate legal protections," Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) said. By transitioning to a bilateral agreement, there would be a "tangible expression of Iraqi sovereignty," and there would be a predictable legal framework on both sides. It is important, Lugar said, that the Administration be fully transparent about their intentions, and in the progress of their deliberations.
What is the goal of our agreements with Iraq? According to Ambassador David M. Satterfield, it's to help the Iraqi people establish their country as a stable democratic nation that can meet its people's needs. It is imperative, Satterfield said, that the US negotiates with the Iraqi government an agreement that would provide a post-Chapter VII framework [of the UN mandate] that is applicable to US forces. Specifically, "Iraqi consent to the presence and operation of our forces and the protections necessary for our troops to continue to operate in Iraq."
We owe it to our troops in Iraq, Satterfield said, to obtain for them the protections they enjoy elsewhere in the world. "Let me be clear," he said, "the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] and strategic framework will not establish permanent bases in Iraq or specify the number of American troops to be stationed there."
What is the United States long-term relationship with Iraq?
"Our presence in Iraq must be governed by international law or a bilateral agreement, and our military and diplomatic personnel must have appropriate legal protections," Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) said. By transitioning to a bilateral agreement, there would be a "tangible expression of Iraqi sovereignty," and there would be a predictable legal framework on both sides. It is important, Lugar said, that the Administration be fully transparent about their intentions, and in the progress of their deliberations.
What is the goal of our agreements with Iraq? According to Ambassador David M. Satterfield, it's to help the Iraqi people establish their country as a stable democratic nation that can meet its people's needs. It is imperative, Satterfield said, that the US negotiates with the Iraqi government an agreement that would provide a post-Chapter VII framework [of the UN mandate] that is applicable to US forces. Specifically, "Iraqi consent to the presence and operation of our forces and the protections necessary for our troops to continue to operate in Iraq."
We owe it to our troops in Iraq, Satterfield said, to obtain for them the protections they enjoy elsewhere in the world. "Let me be clear," he said, "the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] and strategic framework will not establish permanent bases in Iraq or specify the number of American troops to be stationed there."