This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/middleeast/us-advisory-troops-get-immunity-from-iraqi-law.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
U.S. Advisory Troops Get Immunity From Iraqi Law Diplomatic Note Promises Immunity From Iraqi Law for U.S. Advisory Troops
(about 1 hour later)
Washington — The Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched Special Forces troops that it refused to accept in 2011, when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind. WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched Special Forces troops that it refused to accept in 2011, when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind.
Iraq’s government provided assurances in a diplomatic note that American troops being sent to help combat a growing Islamist insurgency will be exempt from Iraqi law, officials said Monday. But in 2011, American military lawyers deemed such assurances insufficient and insisted troops stay only if legal immunity was approved by the Iraqi Parliament.Iraq’s government provided assurances in a diplomatic note that American troops being sent to help combat a growing Islamist insurgency will be exempt from Iraqi law, officials said Monday. But in 2011, American military lawyers deemed such assurances insufficient and insisted troops stay only if legal immunity was approved by the Iraqi Parliament.
By accepting the same sort of deal he turned down nearly three years ago, President Obama opened himself to further questions about whether he made the right decision to pull out all American troops at the end of 2011, a decision drawing fresh criticism in light of the rapid advances of Islamist extremists now threatening Baghdad.By accepting the same sort of deal he turned down nearly three years ago, President Obama opened himself to further questions about whether he made the right decision to pull out all American troops at the end of 2011, a decision drawing fresh criticism in light of the rapid advances of Islamist extremists now threatening Baghdad.
“What it shows is that they didn’t really have a true commitment then to have a residual force behind,” Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican who has been critical of the decision to pull out all troops in 2011, said in an interview. “Now they are faced with a near-emergency situation, which makes the requirement to go through a Parliament that really isn’t in existence impossible to accomplish. They’re dealing with the reality on the ground.”“What it shows is that they didn’t really have a true commitment then to have a residual force behind,” Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican who has been critical of the decision to pull out all troops in 2011, said in an interview. “Now they are faced with a near-emergency situation, which makes the requirement to go through a Parliament that really isn’t in existence impossible to accomplish. They’re dealing with the reality on the ground.”
The White House argued that this situation is different because Mr. Obama is sending only 300 troops in an advisory role, rather than keeping 5,000 there, as was discussed in 2011. The urgency of the threat to the Iraqi government also weighed as a factor in accepting the sort of guarantee that was not acceptable in the past, aides said.The White House argued that this situation is different because Mr. Obama is sending only 300 troops in an advisory role, rather than keeping 5,000 there, as was discussed in 2011. The urgency of the threat to the Iraqi government also weighed as a factor in accepting the sort of guarantee that was not acceptable in the past, aides said.
“Given those differences, both in size but also in the environment in which they’re operating, the assurances that we’ve received are sufficient in the mind of this administration and in the mind of the commander in chief to assure their security as they do their work,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters.“Given those differences, both in size but also in the environment in which they’re operating, the assurances that we’ve received are sufficient in the mind of this administration and in the mind of the commander in chief to assure their security as they do their work,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters.
Mr. Earnest also argued that this situation was different because Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq was asking for troops this time, while he seemed less interested in having them stay three years ago.Mr. Earnest also argued that this situation was different because Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq was asking for troops this time, while he seemed less interested in having them stay three years ago.
Under an agreement signed in 2008 by Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush, all American troops were due to leave Iraq at the end of 2011. As the year arrived, many in both capitals were interested in forging a new agreement to allow for a relatively small follow-on force to stay behind to help Iraq continue hunting down terrorist cells and train its troops. Under an agreement signed in 2008 by Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush, all American troops were due to leave Iraq at the end of 2011. As the year arrived, many in both capitals were interested in forging a new agreement to allow for a relatively small force to stay behind to help Iraq continue hunting down terrorist cells and train its troops.
While military commanders initially wanted up to 24,000 American troops to stay, Mr. Obama settled on a 5,000-troop proposal. But Pentagon lawyers insisted that the troops have immunity from Iraqi law and said such protection had to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament, as it had been under the 2008 agreement signed by Mr. Bush. While military commanders initially wanted up to 24,000 American troops to stay, Mr. Obama settled on a 5,000-troop proposal.
Although Mr. Maliki said he was willing to send such an agreement to Parliament, Sunni and other Shiite leaders opposed it and chances of passage seemed slim. Mr. Maliki offered to guarantee immunity to American troops on his own authority with an executive agreement. But the Pentagon lawyers and even Iraq’s chief justice concluded that would not be constitutional without parliamentary approval. But Pentagon lawyers insisted that the troops have immunity from Iraqi law and said such protection had to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament, as it had been under the 2008 agreement signed by Mr. Bush.
Although Mr. Maliki said he was willing to send such an agreement to Parliament, Sunni and other Shiite leaders opposed it and chances of passage seemed slim. Mr. Maliki offered to guarantee immunity to American troops on his own authority with an executive agreement.
But the Pentagon lawyers and even Iraq’s chief justice concluded that would not be constitutional without parliamentary approval.
In effect, the diplomatic note Mr. Obama has now accepted is the equivalent of what Mr. Maliki offered in 2011 and was rejected by the Obama administration.In effect, the diplomatic note Mr. Obama has now accepted is the equivalent of what Mr. Maliki offered in 2011 and was rejected by the Obama administration.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said the note assures protections “equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in-country before the crisis,” referring to the small number of American troops based at the American Embassy in Baghdad. Because such troops are there to secure the facility and conduct relations with Iraqi counterparts, much as in other embassies around the world, they are covered under the traditional diplomatic immunity provided by the Vienna Convention and ostensibly report to the American ambassador. Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said the note assures protections “equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in-country before the crisis,” referring to the small number of American troops based at the American Embassy in Baghdad.
Because such troops are there to secure the facility and conduct relations with Iraqi counterparts, much as in other embassies around the world, they are covered under the traditional diplomatic immunity provided by the Vienna Convention and ostensibly report to the American ambassador.
The 300 Special Forces troops now being sent would not qualify for such diplomatic immunity because of their mission, and therefore a separate agreement had to be reached.The 300 Special Forces troops now being sent would not qualify for such diplomatic immunity because of their mission, and therefore a separate agreement had to be reached.
“We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq,” Admiral Kirby said. “With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams.”“We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq,” Admiral Kirby said. “With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams.”