Iraq raises idea of timetable for U.S. withdrawal

Mmm does that make Al-Maliki an Obama supporter?

Well it's about darned time, what, over 4 years overdue?

Now we get to see if it actually is the so-called democracy all the righties claim they (at their computers) have been fighting for. If Bush rejects such a plan by the Prime Minister of a 'liberated' country... well.... isn't much of a 'free' country, now is it? nor is it 'liberated' from any dictator.

in the Louisiana plantations the host would put a pineapple in the guests' rooms when it was time for them to leave. i guess this is their pineapple. someone had to say it.

nothwithstanding, Iraq is still not ready for a drawdown. Look at what's going on in Afghanistan.

The bush administration says this and says that. Who cares? they have been full of lies for 7 years so far.

Now Iraq has said they want us out of Iraq. They want a time table. How does that play into the permanant bases and staying there just as long as we can? < :-)

Then send troops to Afghanistan and get them out of Iraq. And bring the other troops home!!!!! < :-)

Bush's brilliant change in strategy has brought us to the point where Iraq is nearly ready to take over for itself. Had the Left had it's way, the US would have withdrawn and the country would be in chaos today. Harry Reid said we "lost the war" - what a dimwit! Wars are always difficult and unpredictable - but Bush turned things around and brought about a victory when defeat was a real possibility. In historical terms, it is similar to Lincoln's replacing of his ineffectual generals and elevating Grant to head his Army.

bush should have turned things around on 18 March 2003 and brought the troops home. But no........

How's this fit with permanant bases and being in Iraq for 100 years? < :-)

Wow thought this was a joke till I read...........Someone better tell ole Mc that Iraq wants us gone before his 100 years are up......

Bush's brilliant

An oxymoron if I ever read one..........LOL

Wolfpack, The violence in Iraq has decreased because it has shifted to Afghanistan. bush's strategy = brilliant? Don't think so. Fighting a war by playing directly into the enemy's hands is so stupid, that it may actually work for a moment, when the enemy is so shocked by the lack of foresight. After that intial shock wears off however...not so much.

Taka

"The violence in Iraq has decreased because it has shifted to Afghanistan."

"The violence in Iraq has decreased because it has shifted to Afghanistan"

Pffft! The violence in Iraq has decreased because the surge worked, and we are now in the process of drawing down U.S. troops as Iraqi security forces become more capable.

"The violence in Iraq has decreased because it has shifted to Afghanistan"

Damn, that just blows the crap out of keeping troops in Iraq. McCain's plan to take care of war-mongers is in the tanks. < :-)

So, Maliki now feels strong enough to keep his Shiite rule in place without US support. Irak is going to be run by the Shiites, with "islamic principles" ensconced in the constitution, slowly turning it into an Iranian colony. Brilliant strategy, Mr. Bush (and Hillary-Bama). Removing a bloody, but comparatively secular dictator and handing all the loot to the Mullahs in Iran. Ahmedinejad must be celebrating in Teheran, popping corks of whatever he is allowed to drink.

Future historians will marvel at the pure idiocy of all this.

WilliB I can tell by your post you don't agree with Al-Maliki. You have a better suggestion? < :-)

This message was not for Bush.

nor is it 'liberated' from any dictator.

Smith, you can be against the war for a variety of reason, but claiming that Iraq hasn't been freed from a dictator is silly and undercuts your own credibility. Why do that to yourself?

WilliB does have a point. It was basically impossible for both shiites and sunnis to coexist in a power sharing scheme. The kurds received a share of power, but it couldnt offset the violence in the central areas.

Maliki has to look out for the interests of his country so he doesnt lose credibility, however he hasn't built a strong enough military or police to maintain control. he didnt say that the US should leave TODAY.

The US should set up boot camps and run some intensive training schemes as much as possible. thats the only way they can train the iraqis to be self sufficient. After all, if the US leaves the streets, then the moderate bad guys will go back home too, only leaving the hard core extremists, and no one wants those people around. they will be easier to pick out then.

SuperLib,

Don't you think that what smithinjapan is saying is akin to "out of the frying pan, into the fire"? That's how I interpret his comment and we could equally wonder why you would refuse to take his meaning.

You are right that Saddam is gone and that the Iraqis are certainly free of Saddam, if not of his legacy. However, I think that it is also right and proper to question the phrase "liberated from a dictator" if one believes that phrase is meant to imply that Iraqis are enjoying their liberation more than their subjugation and if you believe that this suggestion is doubtful.

Superlib: "Smith, you can be against the war for a variety of reason, but claiming that Iraq hasn't been freed from a dictator is silly and undercuts your own credibility. Why do that to yourself?"

SezWho2 caught on to my meaning pretty well... not sure why you can't or aren't willing to. Okay, I could see why you're willing to deny it. Anyway, the nuance was, as SezWho said, out of the frying pan and into the fire. Now, if you can't understand that, I suggest looking it up.

Finally, the Iraqi president makes it public that the Iraqi people don't want a foreign US occupation. I don't understand why the Bush Administration thought he "could win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people," when British primacy at the being of the 20th century couldn't. Let me see...the administration has removed the dictatorship of Saddam to only instill a puppet regime that can no longer tolerate an American presence. Does the administration have cultural advisers??? They should of consulted them before the invasion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul is totally lost on kool-aid.

Nor do I think he understands the intricacies of the carnival game whack-a-mole.

Taka

Heh, well, at least Iraqi politicians are learning diplomacy in their attempts to sell a security plan that basically grants US occupation 'till the year dot - even though it's a plan that the general public want nothing to do with.

What cracks me up the most is that there are still posters deluding themselves about this, one even mention Bush an brilliant in the same line. Good God, I didn't know delusion could go this far.

I was a little surprised to see "Bush's brilliant strategy" myself. In fact he was belatedly following the advice of General Eric Shinseki who was shown the door when he suggested more troops might be needed in the run-up to the invasion.

Anyway, as the NYT's OP-Ed noted yesterday, "Instead of planning for a serious drawdown of American troops, the White House is using its self-proclaimed success as one more excuse for staying on. Mr. Bush’s successor will almost certainly inherit an Iraq with at least 130,000 American troops still fighting there."

Translation: We're winning but we can't leave. It's difficult to defend this security agreement when the contents are unknown to the public hence no war-supporter commented on its utility (for the USA and post-Saddam Iraq). But it's not great evidence of transparent government, a hall-mark of democracy.

US is pathetic for invading a country based on a pack of lies. The war on terror is an oxy moron as US uses terror and is a terrorist state. USA is responsible for over million body bags now thats pathetic.

Just because you are American does not make USA less of a pathetic terrorist state.

And Joe Biggs calling other people trolls when you run out of arguments does not make USA less of a pathetic terrorist state either. Now US has two options. They can stay in Iraq and bleed to death and go bankrrupt or they can go back to where they came from a exit Iraq with their tails between their legs. It should nto be a tough choice for a rational being.

I was a little surprised to see "Bush's brilliant strategy" myself. In fact he was belatedly following the advice of General Eric Shinseki who was shown the door when he suggested more troops might be needed in the run-up to the invasion.

It is a bit like proclaiming the brilliance of a 5-yard gain after first running 50 yards in the opposite direction.

The American people were told by the Bush regime that the Iraqis would embrace freedom and democracy after getting rid of Saddam. What they appear to have embraced is the freedom to arm themselves to ethnically cleanse certain areas and settle centuries-old grudges. What no outside force can impose is loyalty to an entity, in this case a federal Iraq, that transcends the loyalty to tribe or religious group.

It's why, in trying to hold such a place together, Saddam resorted to the tactics that he did.

Pakistan, a nuclear power, is a very similar story.

Here you go, hope your ready for this one;

If you would have read you will see that most of the people here agree with a pull out time table. You have an issue with America and when you have an issue with America then you with most Americans.

Bush doesnt know what he is doing the advantage America has over most countries is that we remove of leaders ever 4-8 years.

Bushes plan was childish and really didnt have clear vision. He should have read a bit more about fighting land wars in Asia. Also should remember that no modern Army can fight a two front war.

Yes Bush and his republican party should not have waited for the leader of Iraq to talk about a time table. That makes his administration look weak and inept.

Really allow a petty leader like the president/vassal to tell that you should think of a time table is real weak.

Now Peace, I dont know if you know it, but there are more options that you can even think of. One is the one I want, a draft, pump as many troops as we can produce and really play it to win.

I dont think Iraq and its petty fighters would stand a chance against a fully armed America. You may think differently but hell who cares.

Draft them, train them and give them a gun is what I say. Then all this terrorist nonsense will end.

What ya think Peace?

"It is a bit like proclaiming the brilliance of a 5-yard gain after first running 50 yards in the opposite direction."

Heh - the bush supporter in a nutshell.

LOL now I like that............BUt darn it it is so true!

yabits,

Thanks for the laugh! Someone quicker on his feet than GWB might have denounced the looting which followed Saddam's downfall (but real and statue) as "not at all the type of freedom we meant." Instead the administration was caught unprepared and could only dismiss it with "stuff happens," like when does anything ever stay the same?

Guess those political benchmarks that all of you said would never happen are starting to be achieved also thanks to the same surge all of you said would never work.

Good Job troops, Iraq is finding her FREE voice becuase of you and it would have never happened if so many J.T posters here had their way.

When Americans call our troops bravely fighting our enemies wherever they are "whack-a-mole," they may not be aware that this is demoralizing to the troops. Or maybe they are, which is unforgivable.

Indeed they are finding their voice, Sailwind. This is the first time PM al-Maliki has spoken of the need to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the country he was democratically appointed to represent. (The "appointed" doesn't imply he's a puppet but rather that he did not run for the position of PM). Yet a White House spokesman has emphasized in response that the secretive bilateral talks on a SOFA make no mention of a specific date for US withdrawal.

Most of those against the war are heartened by the words coming out of Iraq's FREE mouth. The question is then, why isn't the GWB administration?

The question is then, why isn't the GWB administration?

Doesn't matter anymore. The Bush administration is for all purposes done. For all it's mistakes it will hand over this to the next President be it Obama or McCain. Iraq a country a work in progress. The choice is clear abandoned that progress or continue on the path this administration has in all intensive purposes forced on the next President.

Myself it would be asinine to not continue on what the surge has brought, a real chance to let the Iraq's sort this out for themselves without damn car bombs going off in markets. That is going to be the reality for the next President and what he's going to inherit. Obama was smart to give himself wiggle room on his timetable, he knows Americans won't look kindly to pulling the plug when Iraq is looking more and more like a success than a failure.

Time you started to think about Iraq today and her future and no longer about how we got here.

Time you started to think about Iraq today and her future

Indeed as the NYT's op-ed page said yesterday:

Senator John McCain says he will stay on until “victory” is achieved. But he has not fully explained what that means or how it can be accomplished, much less how it can be accomplished while simultaneously routing militants in Afghanistan.

Senator Barack Obama is right when he says the United States must withdraw from Iraq so it can finish the fight in Afghanistan. But after promising to immediately begin drawing down troops by one or two brigades a month, he is now giving himself wiggle room by suggesting he will let military commanders set the pace.

What is needed is a far more serious, public discussion by the two candidates about how they plan to meet their commitments and also ensure that Iraq’s chaos does not spin further out of control or spread even further over its borders.

Fortunately, two new reports — one by the centrist Center for a New American Security and the other by a liberal-leaning task force involving the Commonwealth Institute, some members of Congress and many academics — are asking those far more complicated questions. They have differences, especially on the timing of withdrawal, but they point the debate in the right direction. Most notably:

What support does Iraq need to ensure that provincial elections set for later this year — a crucial opportunity for disenfranchised Sunnis to play a larger role in government — and national elections in 2009 are as free and fair as possible?

What help does Iraq’s government need to resettle some two million internally displaced Iraqis and another two million who have fled to Syria and Jordan?

There are more issues, these are just the first two. What is notable here is that the Iraqis will play a role in addressing them. And we need to bring them even when we don't like what they have to say or suggest.

sailwind - Exactly, exactly! Agree or disagree with the liberation of Iraq, the question is where we go from here. Stay until the job is done or withdraw now and let the country descend into chaos.

I love these posts. It's either:

Bring our troops home. Iraq says they will deal with their own security.

or

We'll leave when we get damn good and ready and we'll tell Al-Maliki when we're ready. < :-)

The Bush administration is for all purposes done.

Ummm, no it's not. It is negotiating this security agreement in secret which will bind the United States after GWB leaves power. Apparently they've done some sort of end-run around Congressional need for ratification, as intended by our wise founding fathers.

Sailwind,

The US installed government is pushing for a security deal that the Iraqi people absolutely do not want whilst refusing al-Sadr's crazy leftist notion of having a public referendum....eeeew, that sounds so socialist it could almost be French.

[Maliki's time-table request] illustrates the double-bind that Bush, McCain, and the conservative commentariat have created for themselves with their relentless surge-o-mania. If they're wrong and the surge has failed to significantly change the fundamental realities of Iraq, then it's time to get out. If they're right and the surge is succeeding brilliantly, it's also time to get out. Moreover, if Iraqis agree with either assessment, it's definitely time to get out.

Theoretically McCain, if not Bush, could get out of the box by agreeing with Maliki that things are going so well that a withdrawal timetable is in order. But having staked a lot on the argument that Barack Obama is flip-flopping on the terms of withdrawal, McCain's not in a great position to change his tune now.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2008/07/08/iraq_mccain/

The so-called US allies or the "puppets" and the "resistance" who have been fighting each other agree that US should go home. You do not need much brain to understand that US is the problem. It seems as if everyone in the world has except the American trigger happy war mongering nationalists. BUT. AMericans still want to stay and run the country into bankrrupcy.

Yes, Iraq is finding her free voice, all the while Iran is whispering in her ear....

"The security is there, it's much better, it's going to continue to evolve," Adm. Mike Mullen said Tuesday in an Associated Press interview after a walking tour of this recent combat zone. But if local political reform falters "or the economy doesn't get going — and here [in Mosul] the two are linked — then I'm not sure that security makes that much difference."

How is an open-ended US presence going to facilitate political reform and economic development?

they should stay there as long as possible...

forever, preferably: it's a very hot place, iraq...

Betzee,

How is an open-ended US presence going to facilitate political reform and economic development?

It does wonders for haliburton/KBR, SAIC and blackwater's economic development.

Taka

It does wonders for haliburton/KBR, SAIC and blackwater's economic development.

I heard Scott McClellan's proposed title for Dick Cheney's memoirs is How I Upped Halliburton's Income and Up Yours.

McCain, upon hearing this news of a proposed time-line for withdrawal, dismissed PM Maliki as "a politician." (Is that a sign of self-loathing or what?) Well, yeah Senator but he's also head of the post-Saddam democratic government. And when someone of that stature tells 'ya to pack your pack your bags and take the troops home and you don't, then you (or we) become an occupin' force pure and simple. This could get interestin'.....

Thanks to the surge, we may be closer to a major reduction in US troops in Iraq then anyone could have thought possible just a few short months ago. Heck, if Iraq feels like they can take it from here, then let them have it. However, I would suggest a gradual drawdown over the course of months instead of an immediate and complete pullout. The primary point here is that the US withdraws from a position of strength instead of being chased out by Al Qaeda or al-Sadr.

If I were McCain, I wouldn't take Maliki's comments as anything other than a vindication of his support for the surge. As long as the timetable is based on the situation in Iraq and not in the Democrat National Committe headquarters in D.C., then that's cool with me.