UN Mandate In Iraq Not Needed

Administration Says President Can Keep Troops in Iraq Even After UN Mandate Expires

By ANNE FLAHERTY
AP News
Mar 05, 2008 18:53 EST
Courtesy Of: WireDispatch

The administration can keep troops in Iraq into next year even after the current U.N. mandate governing operations there expires and without Congress' permission, a senior State Department official told a Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday.

In a letter to Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., David Satterfield said military operations can continue "beyond the end of this year under the laws passed by Congress and the president's authority as commander in chief."

Satterfield's statement reaffirms the administration's position that it does not need international or congressional approval to conduct military operations around the world, particularly when going after terrorists.

Democrats counter that the president's assertion is in violation of the Constitution and hurts the U.S. image abroad.

"It's ludicrous to think that we have entry into any country because there's an individual there that we don't like," Ackerman said in an interview.

Particularly if the U.N. mandate expires, "I think the world would see our place in Iraq as totally illegitimate at that point," he said.

Satterfield, the State Department's top adviser on Iraq, sent the letter in response to a pointed exchange with Ackerman a day earlier during a House hearing.

With the U.N. mandate set to expire at the end of the year — and neither Iraq nor the U.S. wanting to extend it — the two countries are negotiating a long-term security plan that would take its place. The closely held draft document foresees a flexible agreement that would allow the U.S. and Iraqi governments to adapt and shift responsibilities as conditions change.

While officials say it would not tie the U.S. to specific troop levels or establish permanent bases in Iraq, the plan is expected to preserve the U.S. right to hunt down top foreign fighters inside Iraq's borders.

Administration officials have said they probably will not seek Senate approval of the plan because the agreement will not be a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees.

This position has prompted a backlash in Congress, where Democrats have proposed legislation that would render the agreement null and void without the Senate's blessing.

In his statement, Satterfield cites two legislative measures that he says gives the administration cover to remain in Iraq: the 2001 and 2002 resolutions authorizing force in Iraq and against nations harboring al-Qaida terrorists.

Democrats and some Republicans have questioned whether the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq still applies legally because it referred to the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 2003 invasion, Hussein has been captured and killed, and weapons of mass destruction were not found.

Source: AP News

Related Material:

Bush Officials: Congress Irrelevant On Iraq