Is the post-war bi-lateral security agreement with Iraq precedent shattering?
Do the denizens of the mainstream media actually, you know, know anything about anything at all? During Monday’s press gaggle (that’s what the White House actually calls it) the subject of the pending status of forces agreement with Iraq, post-war or I should say post-victory, came up. Q Is there any precedent for this in history? I mean, there wasn’t anything like this after Korea or Vietnam or any other kind of American engagement. GENERAL LUTE: Well, in fact, we do have a long-term bilateral with Korea. There are about a hundred countries around the world with which we have bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. You should think about the one that’s emerging here with Iraq as one in that same sort of setting. Now, to anyone who has been in the military or has much familiarity with the military at all (or who gets paid to ask asinine questions about the military), the phrase “status of forces agreement” ought to ring a bell. If you’ve been stationed overseas, a status
