Heads Up!!!

[mikeh2002]

Bush is working on a deal with the current Iraq "government" will commit our forces to that country for a "relationship" similar to the one we have been maintaining with Korea, Germany, japan, etc.
If he signs this agreement it will be nearly impossible for the next president to undo. Since it does not technically (according to the article) constitute a treaty it does not need Senate approval.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

 

[slantedview]

"Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact."

Why would it be hard to undo? It doesn't say - but if it's not backed by anything, I don't know why it couldn't be just ignored.

 

[ReallyNow]

I'm sure we could get them to sign another pact. The "we're leaving your country and not coming back" pact. I'm sure they'd go for it and since it doesn't rise to the level of a treaty the next president couldn't unilaterally undo it and I'm sure the Iraqi's wouldn't allow it after they've had their country back for at least 4 years.