Iraq raises idea of timetable for US withdrawal
AP
Posted: 2008-07-07 15:11:43
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable - an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely sure what al-Maliki had said.

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

"The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/iraq-raises-idea-of-timetable-for-us/n20080707151109990021

So are we listening?

If I'm correct, President Bush is in complete agreement with the quote from the article: "his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security."

The administration doesn't want to be there if Iraqi forces are able to provide strong enough security for the country to thrive. The only difference is that they are rejecting an explicit pre-emptive timetable for that.

Think about it...how can you predict when the Iraqi forces will be ready? It's impossible. And therefore, putting a restrictive timetable on it wouldn't likely achieve the goal of leaving only when the Iraqi forces are stable and in control.

(You can debate the premise of whether or not we should even be waiting until they are ready to handle it themselves or not, but I don't think you can really argue that if we stay, a timetable is a bad idea due to the inherent inaccuracies)

Considering the civil unrest in that country, partly due to us being there, one could say they will never be able to secure themselves.

The only way for us to stop the violence in this part of the country is for us to pick a side and then work as mercenaries for that side to obliterate the other side or sides. We rightly cannot do that, not saying we were ever right in this situation because we were not, but being mercenary soldiers is not what our military is here for.

When you mix religion with politics this is the perfect example of what happens. Faith based beliefs go deep and people are willing to die for what they consider a just cause, their religion. We will not see them convert to the other side, we will not see a peace because of the power struggle soooooo basically we will either leave them to solve their own problems or we will stay forever to eventually pick a side and begin to fight against the other side.

Once we hear that they want us to leave, which we have already heard a few years back, we should have been gone.

If, only if, we were really there to free the people and help them form a democracy, of which we are not, we are a republic government, so what the democracy hype is, who knows. We have done as much as we can do for this cause. They will never stop fighting each other over their causes. Again I will say they will never stop fighting each other over their causes. So we either leave them to their civil disputes or we pick a side and annilihate the other sides.

I'm not arguing policy here, there's no point to that since all that it does is highlight the divide between personal opinions. What I'm saying is that if you assume the premise that we should be there until they are able to provide their own security, then a timetable is not a good way to do so. (If pressed to pick a policy side, I would agree that they aren't likely to ever be able to police themselves.)

As for the semantics, our constitutional republic is the modern functional equivalent of "democracy". True democracy is impossible in a large society, and so an "elective democracy" is required. The difference is entirely negligible and not worth quibbling over.

They will never be able to provide for their own security as long as a US placed leader and Gov is in place!

This idea of a timetable for a US withdraw is merely proof that Maikai is really not their chosen leader.
He would agree and sign the proposed Bush agreement if he were truly in charge, but the rest of the Iraqi Parliament are not going to allow it no matter who Bush thinks is in charge!

The only ones who wish for the US to stay are the Bush Administration and their NeoCon masters.
The Iraqi's will just bide their time, and whether its next week or 20 years from today, they will have a Gov and leader of their choice.
Only then will they have control of their security!

Posted the story yesterday along with the fact that Saddam's 550 tons of uranium was finally safely removed from Iraq as well as another good news report.

This is certainly good news. Today, the state department rejected a withdrawal without conditions, since the Iraqi government does want the US to remain a close security partner.

This whole thing shows that the Iraqi government is becoming a diplomatic player along with the economic discussions they have been in with other foreign governments. They are growing and becoming a viable economic, diplomatic, and surely secure, by their own military and security forces as well, since they are in sole military control of over 9 of their provinces.

Attacks are down. Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities down 90%, attacks in general down 80% from a year ago.

Anbar Province, the once hotbed of Sunni insurgency and al-Qaeda attacks, is now fully under Iraq Government control. Iraqi security forces are maintaining its security.

"Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda: PM" from REUTERS - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1880448320080125?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

What you have posted here is slightly twisted towards your agenda but even with what you have posted, we need to leave them to taking care of their country. They asked us to leave a couple years ago and we are still occupying their country AGAINST THEIR WILL.

If we were 'occupying' them, why are we increasingly handing over whole provinces to their full military control ontop of their already full government control?

Sorry but you cannot get away from the all important fact that they did not ask us to "free" them in the first place. That makes all your defenses a wash.

We went to a country that did not strike us and invaded and occupied them. Makes us no better than Saddam.

The Iraqis that fled to the US and throughout the world to get away from Saddam and his iron fist have been asking us and others for many years now.

How can the people in Iraq have asked us when they were ruled under an iron fist? Those who did so were quickly thrown into prisons for torture and killed slowly if not simply dragged out in the street with a bullet put to the back of their head. Or....they were gased or bombed.

I seem to remember Iraqi-Americans and Iraqis throughout Europe dancing in the streets, waving US and Iraq flags, and celebrating the liberation.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/10/1049567793257.html

Could post hundreds of these, pictures, and many more surrounding other events such as the first time Iraqis voted, around the Constitution, and when Saddam was executed by Iraqis for his crimes against his people.

I won't debate what happened to Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
That is past history, and no longer relevant for discussion.

What is happening now is that Iraq wants to take more control over their destiny, and is asking for a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw, and President Bush opposes this?

Why?

Isn't 'the surge' working?

Doesn't the President want Iraq to have autonomy in making it's own decisions on how they will run THEIR, not OUR country?

Why oppose this, when American soldiers are still dying over there?

A majority of the American people want a solution in Iraq, not a forever war.

So it's time to declare victory and draft a resolution, approved by the Iraqi government, on a timetable to withdraw troops.

I'd think conservatives would view this as a positive development that would help John McCain!

If they could declare that victory in Iraq was at hand, wouldn't that strengthen their position going into November?

The victory is at hand. There is just no way to turn over complete control of the approximately 8 remaining provinces not under complete Iraqi military control in 4 months unless it is dangerously rushed.

Yet, victory is never assured as well. But, to live in a mental state where you only hope and see defeat, despite evidence that suggests progress is wrong as well.

As well, you said in your post a statement about signing an agreement on troop withdrawal. There are two issues with that. Iraq has stated they wanted a continued security detail, which would maintain some US presence there in some capacity, though much much more limited than the current state. Whatever that means to them I do not know.

Shoot, I doubletapped and posted the last one twice.

Just remember after WWII things were not rosey in Japan and Germany. However, unlike then you did not have an ever present media getting news and such to us in mere minutes, if not seconds, from when it happened. Most news of the reconstruction in both never got back to the states back then until days, weeks, months, years, or never at all.

I don't know either.

But why not?

A continued security detail to check progress and keep watch on trouble as it arises.

There is no reason for the President to oppose a timetable other than it's not in the best interest of the Republican Party, it's corporate handlers and lobbyists.

Apples and oranges.

Mass communication was not as good during WWII.

No TV, just radio and newspapers.

And it was a world war, not just one country.

Or, like you hear stated in all press time and time again. There is that worry if you state, "Hey, we are fully pulling out on August 1st (for example)", that the enemy will then just sit back and relax waiting for that date when all forces are out and go on a spree. I don't think it likely, but it of course weighs on the strategerists minds. The newsmedia is surely shoving that one down our throats, many with hope it will happen just so they can do a Vietnam-style celebrating of defeat.

Come on Starsailor.

Do you really think the Iraqis will set a timetable of August 1st of this year?

They may be optimistic but I doubt they are THAT optimistic.