General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity
Remember last week when President Obama said ?
Well, the U.S. couldn't do it until the Iraqi government gave U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution, through what's called a "diplomatic note." If those U.S. soldiers committed any crimes or had any legal troubles while advising Iraqis, the U.S. wanted to handle any prosecutions.
Here's what Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had to say today:
"Many of you have asked today about the status of legal protections for the small number of military advisors that will be working inside Iraq.
"I can confirm for you that Iraq has provided acceptable assurances on the issue of protections for these personnel via the exchange of diplomatic note. Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/23/324900017/under-attack-by-isis-iraq-agrees-to-give-u-s-troops-immunity
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)in this conflict. They are also a hot mess. You have ISIS, Shite militias, Kurds, etc. They haven't agreed to give squat to US soldiers.
Stay out!
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)There are already a few teams of 12 there now, "sharpening the tip of the spear."
The "advisers" will be getting the intel for the airstrikes. The words used by the administration are clear: targeted, intense, sustained.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Leaving al-Maliki in power was eleventy-dimensional chess to extend the war in Iraq?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is preemption again. Obama's bush-lite doctrine.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)ISIS on the march across Iraq.
To me, the US supporting the Iraqi government's request for help appears to be a response to either a revolt or an invasion that is actually happening.
Please explain a bit on what's being preempted so I can understand.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We have no obligation to be one side's military power in a civil war. We are not a beck and call military of the world.
Setting that to the side, listen to the rhetoric marketing this action. It is being sold as a threat to our national security, hence pre-emption.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I suppose how one defines national security threat is also a matter of choice.
I am not aware of anyone serious saying ISIS currently threatens the US, so I suppose any act against them would have to be preemptive in that sense.
I suppose that a person could argue risk also includes loss of profits for shareholders in the national security complex if we don't engage ISIS militarily.
