ty mikey for this post Obama Flips on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq

President Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011 because he couldn’t get Iraq’s parliament to offer U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi prosecution. But now Obama has promised to send in hundreds of special operations forces before securing even a simple promise that these soldiers will not be tried in Iraq’s famously compromised courts for actions they are taking in defense of Baghdad.  

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there is a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. Baghdad’s inability to provide that promise yet is one of many reasons why the Pentagon and the White House have been reluctant to support air strikes inside Iraq—despite lobbying from Secretary of State John Kerry and his aides for more action and efforts to persuade Iraq’s government to promise such legal protections.

“We remain confident that the military advisers will have the protections they need,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. “They are going to Iraq with the full support of the Iraqi government. We are working through the mechanism for assurances and we hope to [have it] resolved soon.”

The debate has echoes of 2011, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton favored keeping more troops in Iraq past 2011 than President Obama.

According to multiple administration officials involved in the process, senior members of the State Department have argued internally that limited U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are needed—along with more direct assistance to the Baghdad government—to push back the terrorist group.

If air strikes are going to be effective, however, they would require at least some U.S. forces to provide the intelligence on what individuals, equipment, and buildings should be targeted. At least some of the 300 special operators Obama is sending to Iraq are supposed to prepare those assessments of ISIS—as well as evaluate the Iraqi military and what kind of gaps in it U.S. assistance may address.

But for now, those units will be vulnerable to potential prosecution in an Iraqi justice system not exactly known for its evenhandedness. It’s happened before. In January 2011, Pakistani authorities jailed Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor and former U.S. soldier, after he killed two individuals in Lahore. Davis ultimately escaped Pakistani justice. At the time, the Obama administration argued that Davis was covered under the same legal protections as U.S. diplomats.

In Iraq, no such diplomatic immunity is on offer for the special operations teams, according to U.S. officials briefed on the negotiations. These sources say the special operations forces being sent to Iraq would not be covered under the diplomatic immunity provided to U.S. military personnel still attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Back in 2011, when the United States tried to negotiate for several thousand U.S. military personnel to stay in Iraq past the end of that year, the White House demanded Iraq’s parliament approve modifications to what is known as a status of forces agreement (SOFA) that included these kinds of legal protections. This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.”

But Kahl added, “For any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections.”



Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WOW!

300 Troops Head to Iraq with Immunity Assurances

Jun 23, 2014 | by Richard Sisk
The Iraq government has provided sufficient assurances on immunity from local law for Special Forces to undertake their advisory mission with the reeling Iraqi army, Pentagon officials said Monday.

The Defense Department has not yet received in writing immunity agreements for the troops, but "Iraq has provided acceptable assurances" for the 300 Special Forces troops to begin moving into Baghdad, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.
  
Kirby said Iraq "has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis," when troops were subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice and not Iraqi law.
A formal agreement on the legal protections was being worked out between the State Department and the government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Pentagon officials said.

Last week, President Obama announced that up to 300 Special Forces will deploy to Iraq to advise the Iraqi national security forces on combating the advancing militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.
None of the Special Forces troops has arrived yet and the first contingents were not expected before the end of this week, Pentagon officials said.
In the meantime, U.S. troops already in Iraq at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will take up advisory roles until the Special Forces troops arrived, but "that hasn't happened yet," said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.
Warren also said that the U.S. has not sent Iraq any arms shipments since ISIL fighters attacking in pickup trucks began sweeping across large swaths of northern and western Iraq earlier this month.
Warren said that the U.S. was expediting shipments under current sales agreements with Iraq to include Hellfire missiles, but he could not give a date on when the shipments might arrive.
On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Baghdad and immediately went into lengthy meetings with Maliki on the deteriorating situation on the ground.
Over the weekend, ISIL reportedly took over several crossing points on the borders with Jordan and Syria, effectively erasing lines on a map of the Mideast drawn by France and Britain after World War I.
Kerry said he pressed Maliki to form a more inclusive government of the Shia, Sunni and Kurd communities to face the "existential threat" posed by ISIL. U.S. "support will be intense, sustained, and if Iraq's leaders take the steps needed to bring the country together, it will be effective," Kerry said at a Baghdad press briefing.
U.S. officials have said that potential airstrikes by U.S. forces in the region were contingent upon Iraq forming a more inclusive government.
A U.S. government official traveling with Kerry told reporters that Iraqi government officials were "very fearful of their situation." A lot of people they've known, on the Sunni and the Shia side, over the last ten days have been killed.
The official also said that the shortcomings of the Iraqi military, which was trained and equipped by the U.S. at a cost of $25 billion, have become "very apparent. They're very limited in the air. They have two Cessna planes that can fire Hellfire missiles. That's it, and they can't be everywhere at once."
Retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the ISIL takeover of the Syria and Jordan border crossings was especially troubling.
"It represents an opportunity for ISIL to create safe havens," Cartwright said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" program. "They're in a very commanding position," Cartwright said.

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Jun 23, 2014 | by Richard Sisk





[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Under Attack By ISIS, Iraq Agrees To Give U.S. Troops Immunity
by TOM BOWMAN
June 23, 2014 3:31 PM ET

Remember last week when President Obama said he planned to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq?

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."
That was fast! Back in 2011, the U.S. plan to have thousands of U.S. military trainers in Iraq fell apart because there was no Status of Forces Agreement, which included the vital "immunity from prosecution." After many months of wrangling, the Iraqis wouldn't agree to it. So the U.S. just left. Now with Iraq under attack from ISIS, it's a different story.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you Carello