by Gareth Porter, August 24, 2010
"When the Barack Obama administration unveiled its plan last week for an improvised State Department-controlled army of contractors to replace all U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, critics associated with the U.S. command attacked the transition plan, insisting that the United States must continue to assume that U.S. combat forces should and can remain in Iraq indefinitely.
But the differences between the administration and its critics over the issue of a long-term U.S. presence may be more apparent than real.......
Meanwhile, the Nouri al-Maliki government is not admitting publicly that it would consider such an extension of the U.S. troop presence. The spokesman for Maliki said Aug. 12 there are alternatives to keeping U.S. troops in the country, such as signing “non-aggression and non-interference pacts” with neighbors."
"When the Barack Obama administration unveiled its plan last week for an improvised State Department-controlled army of contractors to replace all U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, critics associated with the U.S. command attacked the transition plan, insisting that the United States must continue to assume that U.S. combat forces should and can remain in Iraq indefinitely.
But the differences between the administration and its critics over the issue of a long-term U.S. presence may be more apparent than real.......
Meanwhile, the Nouri al-Maliki government is not admitting publicly that it would consider such an extension of the U.S. troop presence. The spokesman for Maliki said Aug. 12 there are alternatives to keeping U.S. troops in the country, such as signing “non-aggression and non-interference pacts” with neighbors."
No comments:
Post a Comment