The U.S. is turning over the Green Zone in Baghdad to the Iraqis today. The UN mandate expired at midnight and has been replaced by the new status of forces agreement. While the Americans will still have some heavily guarded compounds and will maintain a security presence, their footprint will be much smaller.
The agreement says Iraq may request help from the U.S. military “for limited and temporary support” in providing security for the Green Zone, but it leaves the details to be worked out by [bilateral] committee members who were recently appointed.
Speaking privately, U.S. officials said they will try to make their presence in the Green Zone less conspicuous in coming days. But they will remain in charge of issuing badges that grant varying levels of access into the area. They said they will not immediately dismantle a vast security apparatus that includes hundreds of Peruvian and Ugandan guards, body-scanning machines, bomb-sniffing dogs and surveillance cameras.
Now begins a period of transition. The exact details of the American transfer will be worked out in the coming months, but Baghdadis will notice some immediate changes.
“On January 1, we are going to control this,” Adnan Karim, 22, an Iraqi soldier manning a checkpoint at one of the entrances to the Green Zone, said, beaming. “The U.S. will be here just as observers. It’s a matter of pride.”
In recent days, Iraqi flags have sprung up along the Green Zone’s mazelike entry points. More Iraqis have been allowed to drive inside, clogging roads that were once dominated by U.S. military vehicles and armored sport-utility vehicles.
The timing of this slow transfer happily coincides with the transfer of power in Washington DC, and the combined effect will hopefully offer a chance for a new beginning. With luck, the process will be orderly (unlike the fall of Saigon) and will not result in a resumption of chaos in Baghdad.
I think that would be best for everyone.
“Now begins a period of transition.“
Transition to what?
Pardon me for not being optimistic about the U.S. intentions, or their willingness to allow Iraqis to manage their own country.
What Iraqis need – what they have always needed – is the United States out of their business. No “advisors”, no “support”, no “footprint” in their country.
While the Americans will still have some heavily guarded compounds and will maintain a security presence, their footprint will be much smaller.
Two observations:
When the money shrinks the footprint will become smaller.
Thanks for this. The term that comes to mind is shell game. It is not about a smaller footprint, it is about moving the footprint and changing its shape.
Anyone who watched the negotiations of this so-called SOFA can see very clearly what the United States was trying to accomplish, and it was not by any means allowing Iraqis to take control of their country and lives. And there is a reason that they insisted upon being given three years to get out, and it was not because they are willing to abandon their project there. If they plan to get out, why do they need three years except to buy time to make the changes that will allow them to stay forever?
Everyone who believes that Iraqis will now have genuine control of the Green Zone, please raise your hands.
I don’t think so. There are too many young men with automatic weapons and hate in their hearts for the infidel invaders. I can’t honestly say that I would be any different were I in their shoes.
You know, you really harm your credibility by sticking in that nonsense about “hate in their hear for infidel invaders”. Your second sentence suggests that you know better.
The people who use the term “infidel” in that context are mainly Americans who think they know something they don’t know.
Well, I just project how I would feel if a Muslim nation sent troops here and committed atrocities and generally acted like colonizers.
If you don’t think religion is a big factor here, then you are the one with a credibility problem.
Why do you think religion should be a big factor in this? Why do you think it should be a factor at all?
And why would it be a factor for you if, as you say, a Muslim nation sent troops, committed atrocities, and acted like colonizers? Would you feel any differently about it if the invaders were Christians? Or would it be better if they were anything other than Muslims?
These are sincere questions. I really would like to understand your thinking on this.
Somehow I missed this the first time around – shame on me. It kind of says it all:
“Speaking privately, U.S. officials said they will try to make their presence in the Green Zone less conspicuous in coming days. But they will remain in charge…“
Yep, it’s all about making their presence less conspicuous. It’s all about appearances.
And yes, I know I left out the part where they said they would be in charge of – well, of security. That is far from all they will remain in charge of. They just won’t be as conspicuous about it.