What significant date in June applies to Iraq?

[cgbrown]

Since we are looking at mid-June for RV, what significant date in regards to Iraq and it's government are we looking at?

Any payments due, any deadlnes looming? Any appointments hanging in the balance. There has to be something we can hang our thoughts on.

[luckylucy]

here's one date in June ... just a report date regarding UNSC Chapter 7 ... posted earlier by Trucker.

April 1, 2010, June 15, 2010, December 31, 2010

1. By April 1, 2010. The Council called on the Government of Iraq to ensure the timely and effective transition to a post-Development Fund mechanism by 31 December 2010 and to put in place the necessary action plan and timeline thereto by 1 April next year (2010). The Council further requested the Government, through the head of the Council of Financial Experts (COFE) to report quarterly to the Council on progress made.

2. No later than 15 June 2010. Unanimously adopting resolution 1905 (2009) and acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council decided that the mechanism of the Development Fund and the International Advisory and Monitoring Board as well as other relevant provisions of resolution 1483 (2003) would be reviewed at the request of Iraq�s Government, or no later than 15 June 2010.

3. December 31, 2010 - Security Council Extends Until 31 December 2010 Arrangements for Depositing Proceeds from Oil, Gas Sales into Development Fund for IraqAdopting Resolution 1905(2009) Unanimously, Council Also RequestsIraq �s Government to Transition to Post-Fund Mechanism by End of 2010

Reasons that are causing Iraq to remain under Chapter 7:

1. Money ~ Iraq owes Kuwait US$16 billion (Dh58.8bn) from loans that were mostly made during the 1980s when Saddam Hussein�s regime was fighting a war with Iran. The Iraqi government owes an additional $25bn in war reparations to Kuwait as a result of the 1990 invasion.Sheikh Mohammed said he was referring only to the money owed to Kuwait through loans, and not compensation, which he said has its own �international mechanism�.The UN Compensation Commission oversees payments to individuals, companies, non-governmental organisations and governments that suffered in the invasion. Five per cent of the country�s oil sales are used as compensation, and Iraq must resolve the reparations issue before it can be relieved of the UN�s remaining sanctions.

2. Border Issues ~ Mr Ali said Kuwait, Iraq and the UN all agreed to the demarcation of the border between the two countries after the Iraq war, but some Iraqi nationalists still do not accept the deal. Some Iraqi MPs have questioned the validity of the border, and others have demanded that Kuwait pay Iraq compensation for giving the US-led coalition a base from which to stage the 2003 invasion, which they said was illegal under international law.

3. Returning the Remains and Documents from 1990 war ~ The Foreign Ministry called on Monday for people to turn their possession of "documents and Kuwaiti property," were seized during the former regime during its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. He said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said on Wednesday, said his country returned the remains of 300 Kuwaiti nationals, and a large part of the archive, according to the UN Security Council resolution,

"But there is still much to return," saying that "Iraq is required under the provisions of Chapter VII of the return of all property and documents, which gesture to the Kuwaiti confirm that we are interested and serious about this subject. "

http://articlesofint...dy-to-lift.html

[ToddS]

I did not see it up above me but the US Military is supposed to be out of Iraq by August according to the timeline. So perhaps there would be some additional security in country with a US Military presence. This is just an opinion of mine I have no link.

[kittycat]

I did not see it up above me but the US Military is supposed to be out of Iraq by August according to the timeline. So perhaps there would be some additional security in country with a US Military presence. This is just an opinion of mine I have no link.

I believe that the US Military is due to be out of Iraq by August of next year - not this year.

[iraqiceman]

Combat troops are to be out by 31 August 2010 and 50k troops will remain for training and then all troops will be out by 31 Dec 2011

[kittycat]

Thanks for clearing that up!

[ToddS]

I believe that the US Military is due to be out of Iraq by August of next year - not this year.

I think it is August of this year. This is one article on the timeline set by Mr. Obama.

Obama sets date to end Iraq combat mission

msnbc.com news services

updated 3:22 p.m. CT, Fri., Feb. 27, 2009

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - Even as President Barack Obama on Friday promised to end the combat mission in Iraq in 18 months, he and others — from his defense chief to powerful lawmakers — danced around some of the specifics about dates and troop numbers.

More..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29371588/

Add 18 months to that date of Feb. 27 2009 ......... August 2010. One advantage of also having members that are in Iraq is reports from them that state this is ongoing as we speak. Bases are being closed ahead of schedule and we (the US Military) have already started the process. I am not in Iraq but I have visited with several of these members that are there.

This is one story on the timeline there are thousands simply "Google" "US Military Timeline for exiting Iraq."

[luckylucy]

I believe that the US Military is due to be out of Iraq by August of next year - not this year.

I believe they we are still following this timeline Obama presented in a speech at Camp Leguene, February 27, 2009

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/ObamaIraqEnd.htm

Part One - Obama Strategy in Iraq

The first part of this strategy is therefore the responsible removal of our combat brigades from Iraq.

Withdrawal of U.S. Combat Troops by Aug 31, 2010

As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops.

Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government.

There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.

After Withdrawal, Supporting the Iraqi Government

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country.

As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions:

* training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian;

* conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and

* protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq.

Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35,000-50,000 U.S. troops.

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned. ..... "

.... for remainder of the plan with respect to Iraq ... http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/ObamaIraqEnd.htm

[luckylucy]

oh, sorry Todds ... took me so long to get the post done, didn't see your post!

ll

[UofIGuy]

I did not see it up above me but the US Military is supposed to be out of Iraq by August according to the timeline. So perhaps there would be some additional security in country with a US Military presence. This is just an opinion of mine I have no link.

This guideline is obsolete because the US military will NOT be out of Iraq for a few more years. There will be a large contigent leaving Iraq in August but at least 50,000 troops will stay in Iraq for years. Why people continue to use this date as a springboard blows my mind. Makes NO sense.

[luckylucy]

This guideline is obsolete because the US military will NOT be out of Iraq for a few more years. There will be a large contigent leaving Iraq in August but at least 50,000 troops will stay in Iraq for years. Why people continue to use this date as a springboard blows my mind. Makes NO sense.

I continue to use those dates because that's the timeline the President Obama has made public. Do you have an update to that? Todds and I both posted links to our President's speech. Also, I've heard General Petraeus reiterate that timeline as well as Christopher Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq.

Is my information outdated? If so, please share something more current.

Thanks!

luckylucy

[luckylucy]

Found some more current info on the US - Iraq withdrawal timeline. There does seem to be those who want the timeline adjusted, but it doesn't look like anything formal has been proposed at this time.

Also, I believe Secretary of State, Hillarious Clinton, is in Middle East this week ... just not sure if that is re Iraq or other ME issues.

April 27, 2010, New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html

Obama Sticks to Plan In Iraq

WASHINGTON — When President Obama approved a plan to withdraw combat forces from Iraq this summer, it was based on the assumption that a newly elected government would be in place by the time Americans headed home. Fourteen months later, that assumption is exploding but the plan remains the same.

The delay and messy aftermath of the Iraqi election mean it may be months before the next government is formed, even as tens of thousands of American troops pack to leave. Yet Mr. Obama has not had a meeting on Iraq with his full national security team in months, and the White House insists that it has no plans to revisit the withdrawal timetable.

The situation presents a test for Mr. Obama’s vow to end the war, perhaps the most defining promise he made when he ran for president. While Mr. Obama has proved flexible about other campaign promises and deadlines, his plan to pull out combat forces by August and the remaining 50,000 trainers and advisers by December 2011 has been the most inviolate of policies.

By sticking to the deadline, Mr. Obama effectively is abandoning the thesis he adopted on the recommendation of military and civilian advisers in February 2009 that a large American military presence was needed long enough to provide stability during the post-election transition.

Instead, the president is now relying on the conclusion that Iraqis are stepping up to the challenges of governing and security that for too long depended on Americans.

“We see no indications now that our planning needs to be adjusted,” said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to Mr. Obama. “We did anticipate an extended period of government formation,” and recent Iraqi-led missions that have killed leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq show “their growing capacity to provide for security, which of course is critical to ending our combat mission at the end of August.”

While Mr. Obama has not convened a full-scale meeting on Iraq lately, Mr. Rhodes noted that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who manages Iraq policy, does hold such meetings regularly and keeps Mr. Obama informed. “It’s something that he’s obviously regularly engaged in,” Mr. Rhodes said of the president.

For Mr. Obama, shifting the deadline would prove complicated for both logistical and political reasons. As he pulls troops out of Iraq, he has been sending more to Afghanistan, putting pressure on the armed forces. And with his liberal base angry at the Afghan troop buildup, any delay of the Iraq drawdown could provoke more consternation on the left.

But the resistance to revisiting the deadline has drawn concern from former American officials, including some who participated in formulating the Obama policy last year. The original plan anticipated Iraqi elections in December and the formation of a new government at least 60 days afterward. Instead, the elections did not take place until March and produced a near tie between the parties of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. And now the two are fighting through the courts and recounts.

Ryan C. Crocker, the former American ambassador to Iraq who was appointed by President George W. Bush and later made recommendations to Mr. Obama regarding the drawdown, said the administration should consider extending the August deadline.

“I am a little bit nervous,” Mr. Crocker, now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, said in a recent interview. “The elections were later than expected and there were very close results between Maliki and Allawi, which suggest it’s going to be a very long process. We may not even have a new government until we’re at the August deadline. I’d like the U.S. to retain the original flexibility.”

Meghan L. O’Sullivan, a former deputy national security adviser to Mr. Bush who oversaw Iraq policy, also said August might be too soon.

“I’m for a shift away from the current rigid deadline to something more flexible, more reflective of the fluid and tense situation in Iraq, where the last thing the Iraqis really need is for the United States to be focused more on exit than anything else at a moment of high political uncertainty,” she said.

Two former officials who worked on Iraq policy in the Obama administration said that after it became clear how late the elections would be, Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander in Iraq, wanted to keep 3,000 to 5,000 combat troops in northern Iraq after the Aug. 31 deadline. But the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter, said it was clear that the White House did not want any combat units to remain.

Maj. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, a spokesman for General Odierno, said no formal request to the White House was ever made. “Nor,” he added, “has the president ever denied him the tools needed to complete our mission.”

General Odierno, as well as his commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the ambassador, Christopher J. Hill, have all said in recent days that they are satisfied with the current timetable.

“I feel very comfortable with our plan,” General Odierno said on “Fox News Sunday” last week, “and unless something unforeseen and disastrous happens, I fully expect us to be at 50,000 by the first of September.”

General Petraeus, in an interview, said the remaining force “is still a substantial number” that should be capable of handling the situation. “The whole process of drawing down and getting to the change in the mission is on track,” he said, “and what we’re seeing in the wake of elections has included efforts by Al Qaeda in Iraq once again to ignite sectarian violence, but we have not seen any success in that regard.”

Some military analysts who have favored higher troop levels in Iraq in the past agreed that the current timetable still made sense. Michael E. O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, said staying longer would mean only that Americans could be enmeshed in deciding between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi. “I don’t see why we should be picking sides in a top-down civil war,” he said.

Peter Baker reported from Washington, and Rod Nordland from Baghdad. Thom Shanker and Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 30, 2010

A news analysis article on Wednesday about President Obama’s determination to stick to his timeline of withdrawing American combat forces from Iraq this summer misstated the rank of a spokesman for Gen. Ray Odierno, the American commander in Iraq. The spokesman, Stephen G. Lanza, is a major general, not a brigadier general. (He was promoted from brigadier general late last year.)

[stephen]

Since we are looking at mid-June for RV, what significant date in regards to Iraq and it's government are we looking at?

Any payments due, any deadlnes looming? Any appointments hanging in the balance. There has to be something we can hang our thoughts on.

no nothing

[82Corp.]

* training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian;

* conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and

* protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq.

Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35,000-50,000 U.S. troops.

These are the facts, if anyone thinks the US is not going to have bases in Iraq for years to come is misinformed. Has anyone read what the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) states. The DOD reserves the right to? Read it you might be suprised if you can find it Boots on the ground.

Read more:

[ToddS]

I absolutely think you guys are correct, I do not think the United States will completely withdraw from the country. I was just trying to give my opinion that the vast majority of the service men and women that are there now should be gone by August 2010. I also wanted to back that opinion up with a news article that confirmed the information I was directly addressing in my statement.

I really do think it would be in everyone's best interest if we had a security force there for a prolonged period of time.

You can also read about our Military Operations in Iraq at the Official Website of United States Forces-- Iraq.

Here.... http://www.usf-iraq.com/

If I am misinformed about the drawdown of the forces in Iraq perhaps it is because there are 20-25 stories about that very subject on the official Website Of Military Operations in Iraq and they are intentionally misleading me......

Read as many of them as you like at an additional link to the above posted website after a search for "Troop Withdrawl."

Link: http://www.usf-iraq.com/?searchword=Troop+Withdrawl&searchphrase=any&limit=&ordering=newest&view=search&Itemid=99999999&option=com_search

[Chief V]

Withdrawal of U.S. Combat Troops by Aug 31, 2010

There's a key word here, after Aug of 2010 30k to 50k troops will remain as counselors and advisors supposedly until the end of 2011 or there abouts. Things do change but I can tell you that August is assuredly the time frame for the removal of all combat troops, they're already going home, and some are getting re-deployed to Afghanistan, which is rumored to be ongoing for another 18 months per Obama's plan to remove our presence from that country.

We might even see a possible presence in Iraq well into the future, if the new leadership so desires, we will make a permanent footprint, or lease for 99 yrs some of their properties to maintain that presence. Those of you with prior military service know just how quickly things can change from one scenario to another, so it's that "we'll cross that bridge once we get to it mentality"...lol

[Mongo]

Since we are looking at mid-June for RV, what significant date in regards to Iraq and it's government are we looking at?

Any payments due, any deadlnes looming? Any appointments hanging in the balance. There has to be something we can hang our thoughts on.

{{{{{{{{{{{NONE}}}}}}}}}}}

[ToddS]

Thanks Chief V I was hoping you would respond to this thread. I always like to hear what you have to say.

[Chief V]

Thanks Chief V I was hoping you would respond to this thread. I always like to hear what you have to say.

You're welcome Todd, what some of us are suspecting there will be around 6 to 8 major bases that we will maintain a presence on, my contract ends in August, and if we're not RV'd by then, I seriously doubt that they'll rehire me and quite a few other Chief's as wel as other officers and firefighters will be reduced to around 200 to 250 maximum. We'll be handling mainly major bases with large populations and airstrips to facilitate our removal, hence the total give in for sovereign airspace at this time too. That's a whole other bag of apples there, it will be interesting to see where all that goes, and whether or not we'll even use major ports (Basra, Jordan) to make the final maneuvers for our departure from their country. Lots of things have been tossed around there, but for OPSEC reasons nobody but the AHJ would know what's really going to happen, and even that could change at the drop of a dime.

V