05/10/2011
By Mina al-Oraibi
Washington, Asharq Al-Awsat – In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey’s lifted the lid on some of the negotiations taking place between Baghdad and Washington as the US military presence in the country winds down. Washington and Baghdad are negotiating on the possibility of US military instructors remaining present in the country post-2011 in order to provide the Iraqi military and security forces with training; however the US is demanding that any US military personnel be granted immunity from Iraqi law.
Late Tuesday, Iraq’s political leaders announced that they had agreed on the need to keep US military trainers in Iraq next year, but they declared that any remaining troops should not be granted legal immunity, a point that the US had said was a deal breaker. Less than three months remain until the last US troops in Iraq are scheduled to leave. Negotiations between Baghdad and Washington are ongoing.
Asharq Al-Awsat spoke to US Ambassador James Jeffrey’s about the logistical and technical issues behind US military instructors remaining in Iraq post-2011, as well as US commitment to Iraqi security and stability, details surrounding the US – Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, and the internal political situation in Iraq.
The following is the full text of the interview:
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Many people are discussing the possibility of US forces remaining in Iraq after the year’s end; however Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki recently came out to say he does not want to extend the US forces presence in Iraq. Has Washington been informed of this?
[Jeffrey] I believe that many of these issues are related to two terms, namely “protection” and “continuance [of the presence of]”. We have an agreement signed in 2008 requesting the complete withdrawal of all US forces present in Iraq by the end of the current year [US – Iraq Status of Forces Agreement], we also have the Strategic Framework Agreement that requests long-term cooperation in a number of areas, including security. Until now, we have arranged to expand the police training program, in addition to programs with US [military] contractors to help the Iraqis train on US military equipment which costs around $8 billion, to give them traditional military capabilities, like tanks, artillery, military aircraft, radar systems, in addition to extremely sophisticated equipment possessed by any regular army. At the moment, the Iraqi army is working as a counter-insurgency force, and it is succeeding in this, but this is not enough.
Last August, following a meeting of leaders of Iraqi parties and trends, the Iraqis decided to give Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the task of sitting with us, and talking about a training program post- 2011, which includes military instructors, in addition to the current [military] instructors present in the country, and we are carrying out negotiations on this issue. The thinking behind the Iraqi request is similar, for example, to one buying a used car; he will need a specialist to train him on how to operate and maintain the vehicle, etc. This type of training is something that exists within US and foreign military contracts, and so specialists from companies like Boeing, for example, come to do such training. However if one wants to take part in a race, they will need their best specialists…to give advice, and traditionally in cooperative operations between different military forces – what we call joint-operations – this requires special training. In addition to this, there are intelligence operations and counter-terrorism, and other operations that require high levels [of training], and this is what the Iraqis aspire to, and they are studying and discussing a small number of US military personnel to carry out training operations [remaining in Iraq post-2011].
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the previous talk about US forces helping Iraq protect its borders? Is this no longer required?
[Jeffrey] No, border protection is a technical issue, and we are doing this now, and there has been huge progress in border protection and helping the [Iraqi] police to protect their borders. This is something that is guaranteed by traditional military capabilities, however at the present time the Iraqi military forces are preoccupied with internal security, such as guarding checkpoints and working with the public throughout Iraq. However traditionally these are police duties, whilst the army focuses upon addressing traditional cross-border threats; the term border protection is a metaphor for traditional military capabilities.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] So you do not expect to see the establishment of a special program to protect Iraq’s borders?
[Jeffrey] No.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the Iraqi Air Force? Baghdad has recently initiated the purchase of a number of F-16 fighter jets. Does this include the provision of US military flight instructions?
[Jeffrey] This agreement traditionally includes aircraft maintenance, general operations, and more. Iraq already has an agreement for the training of an air force, and this began a long time ago, with Iraq’s air force using advanced training planes. However once again, this training only covers how to pilot a plane; the management of an air defense system would require the integration of radar and airplanes, the development of a mechanism to identify friendly and enemy forces, capable leadership, and how to use air defense systems. This is a very complex operation. Advanced tactical training requires military instructors, and this is the type of training that we are speaking about [with the Iraqi government], and the presence of air force instructors in Iraq is helping the Iraqis to protect and monitor their airspace. However the current contracts on the purchase of airplanes and equipment does not include such training.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Can the Strategic Framework Agreement between the US and Iraq be expanded to include such training?
[Jeffrey] This can be done, and this is the thrust of the current talks. It is likely that any agreement that we conclude will be part of the Strategic Framework agreement, however the important point here is that any agreement between us will include US military personnel carrying out these tasks, such as training, and we need to ensure the [legal] immunity [of US personnel in Iraq]. This is something that applies to the presence of our forces across the world, regardless of the nature of their operations. This is the main issue, and will require that this agreement be put before the Iraqi parliament – because it is under Iraqi law – and the issue of immunity [for US personnel in Iraq], and particularly the judicial status of those concerned, must be determined by the [Iraqi] parliament.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] So in the end, this is the core issue that is being discussed?
[Jeffrey] The heart of the matter is that any agreement on the presence of [US] military personnel [in Iraq post-2011] requires parliamentary approval. However in the event that there is an agreement on continuing security support – as provided for in the Strategic Framework Agreement – but which does not include the presence of US military personnel, this does not require parliamentary approval, unless the Iraqi government requires this, or if there are other legal issues. However from the technical standpoint, Article 10 of the Strategic Framework Agreement provides for the application of security cooperation agreements.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] From the US standpoint, is Washington in agreement regarding the issue of US forces remaining in the country?
[Jeffrey] We are committed to strategic relations with Iraq, and this includes relations in a number of areas; political, diplomatic, economic, environmental, cultural, and security. The Strategic Framework Agreement specifies that the details of this cooperation be agreed upon later, and this is what we are discussing now. This is the position of President Obama, for in his speech at Camp Lejeune [27 February, 2009] he spoke about Iraq, not just as an independent, secure, and self-reliant country, but also as a partner in our efforts to ensure regional security and combat terrorism. For example, there are still Al Qaeda terrorist cells carrying out heinous crimes in Iraq, and therefore we have a huge desire to help Iraq in this area.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Some people believe that if such an agreement is concluded, this represents an indication of the US’s continued presence in the country, whilst others believe that a complete withdrawal of US forces would mean that Washington is no longer concerned or interested in Iraq, particularly when looking at the potential destabilizing role that Iran could play in the country. What is your view of this?
[Jeffrey] Firstly, this is a general perception around the world. There is a US presence with regards to [military] instructions, or another type of presence, in many places around the world, and such military deployment is part of broader security relations with these countries, and our global security strategy. Security cooperation with the US represents an important element of stability in the eyes of many countries and people, and many of the Iraqis have been affected by this.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you believe that the US has expressed this commitment, particularly with the possibility of it withdrawing all of its troops from Iraq?
[Jeffrey] I think that the important thing is that we have security relations backed by the US government and people, and the Iraqi government and people, and this is what we are working towards in these talks. We want to reach the common points between the two parties, and if they ask for military instructors, then OK, but this will require the agreement of everybody from the US government and its people to the Iraqi government and its people. However this does not rule out other ways to continue strong security relations, and there are a number of countries who we have strong security relations with without the presence of military troops. I worked in Kuwait in 1996, and we did not have any troops stationed there for the majority of the time, but we did have strong security relations with the country.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Let us look at the internal political situation in Iraq, particularly regarding the controversy regarding the non-application of all the articles of the Erbil Agreement which secured Nuri al-Maliki a second term in office. Are you worried about the consequences of this?
[Jeffrey] We consider the agreements that were concluded last November as being important agreements for a national partnership government in which all political parties are participating, and this is what all Iraqi parties told us when we discussed this issue with them, and this is the basis upon which the current government was formed last December. From the standpoint of Iraqi stability and the wellbeing of the democratic system in the country, we look forward to these agreements being implemented, but there are also clear and genuine differences between the parties regarding the meaning of these agreements and who is and who is not abiding by them, and so on. We see a number of issues that have been raised as a result of this, including the recent attacks in the al-Anbar Province, and the tense relationship between the Erbil and Baghdad governments, but also the ability of political leaders to meet and reach solutions that moves them forward…and this is encouraging, but once again we confirm that the more commitment there is to building trust and committing to agreements, the better it is for Iraq.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Some politicians in Iraq are calling for early elections to solve this problem, do you support this solution? Do you think this is possible?
[Jeffrey] I don’t know. We were under the impression that the next elections will take place in 2014, and I will not comment about internal [Iraqi] political issues such as this.
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=26826
