Iraq asks US to leave

Clearly, they don't know what's good for 'em.

Ungrateful sons of bitches, the lot of them. Here's the Coalition Of The Willing, coming out of the goodness of their hearts to liberate them and before the mission is accomplished they asked them to leave?

They should check again in a couple of decades and we'll see about closing a couple of bases.

I'm looking forward to the spin that I'm sure will come from certain folks.


"This was part of the plan all along! Good for the Iraqis! Bush and America were right, fuck yeah!"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/06/mideast/iraq.php

This is mostly just politicking.

He didn't say "mission accomplished," did he? 'Cause that may be a sign of trouble.

Actually, this is great. If Maliki feels like he can handle (most of) it from a certain point forward, I don't see how it's not a win for all concerned.

I bet they're hiding WMDs.

True. Arbitrary timelines were a horrible idea when the security situation was completely unmanageable for the Iraqis. Calls for a timeline then were more about just declaring the war lost and getting our people out. Now that the surge has contributed to a rapidly stabilizing security situation, Maliki's government has a lot more confidence that the day is approaching when the government can control the violence and rule the country without a few hundred thousand US troops as backup. Whether they are being overly optimistic about this is certainly up for debate, though.

Of course, Bush may be bull-headed and oppose this for political reasons. But there is a big difference between a call for a timetable that comes from Harry Reid declaring the war lost and one that comes from the Iraqi government believing that stability and security gains are sustainable. Hopefully, Bush sees the difference.

if the ungreatfull SOBs don't want to be liberated, fine. The least they could do is let us steal I mean liberate their oil, am I right?

Gosh. Ya think?

I agree with this assessment. If the Iraqi government is finally confident enough in it's ability to control it's own security over a certain time period, I would support it.

I would welcome a time table that can specify when Iraqi Troops can take over a new Iraqi province or security responsibility (like Air Traffic Control) and sets withdrawal #s of US troops for each step. As long as it is flexible to unexpected conditions that might rise up.

I have enjoyed seeing all the different verbs used in the headlines as this news has been reported.

A few interesting paragraphs about Maliki's idea of a withdrawal timetable from the New York Time's Article, Turkish Visit to Iraq Highlights a Regional Warming Trend .

Sounds like a reasonable and smart plan to me.

This makes a lot of sense. It seems like the sort of thing the US should be working towards anyway. A city-by-city, province-by-province turnover based on a a case-by-case assessment of the "facts on the ground" until the Iraqi government is firmly in control of the security for the entire country. To oppose this, Bush, McCain or anyone else would make it abundantly clear that their main interests are political, economic and military control of Iraq, not security, stability, and respect for sovereignty.

Why do you speak in the hypothetical? If the goal was stability, Iraq was stable before the invasion. Security? The place was secure. The people jonesing for war in 2002 and 2003 said so in 2001, later claims to the contrary were just hot air. You can tell because the facts on the ground, as it were, had not changed.

The idea that the United States respects the sovereignty of other nations is just a farce. Witness the US talking about the NW Passage and Arctic resources as if they didn't already belong to us. Or consider the invasion of countries because their citizens have the unmitigated audacity to live over your oil.

Stop make sense. Please, the zealots and jingoists are going to form a bad opinion of you.

According to the BBC, it looks like the US Government and the Iraqi Government have reached a consensus on how a troop withdrawal might occur. Of course, it all could change after elections in both countries over the next year and a half.

US seeks 'time horizon' on Iraq

It sounds a lot like the plan from the New York Times article I posted above a couple days ago.

Actually... No, he doesn't.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...lmaliki.obama/

For anyone that interested, here is the full length interview in question.

How big is that magazine in Germany Jan? (I forget where in Old Europe you're from)

Nope, you're just wrong, as usual.

Very.

Hmm.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but since when does CentCom speak for the Iraqi government? Genuine curiosity, no snark.

haha DER SPIEGEL just made a statement, that it stands by its original translation of the Maliki interview and that there are no errors.
Meaning, the Iraqi puppet president got an angry call from his Master in the White-Blackwater House to distance himself from his own opinion.

Gotta love western democracies at work showing what freedom of speech really means.

HEY! Gitcherass back to being totally wrong again!

After re-reading that Times article, this gave me a bit of a "wtf":

Barack Obama is a really lucky guy. I find it ironic that the Surge and Counter-Insurgency Strategy that he said would fail is probably going to allow him to follow through with his campaign promises of pulling out most combat troops within two years if he is elected President. I don't mind having a lucky guy for President.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the end of 2010 for the exit of American combat troops if Iraq continues on it's present course. With the rapid rate of progress in Iraq over the past year, I see American soldiers/marines off the streets of Iraq by that date anyway. By then, I see American troops mostly providing air cover, logistics, advisers & training for the Iraqi Security Forces. That could probably be handled with the 30,000 troops that Obama mentioned in the Senate Hearing earlier this year.

By 2010, all provinces should be handed over to Iraq control and both the Provincial Elections scheduled for Fall 2008 (maybe early 2009) and the General Elections scheduled for later in 2009 should be completed.

If the Iraqi government can figure out an Oil Sharing Law and settle the Kirkuk situation by then, the need for American troops would be lessened greatly. I see those things as the two biggest flashpoints that could cause Iraq to backtrack.

I am just happy that Iraq is on it's way to becoming a stable democratic country. I don't care who tries to take advantage of it politically in this presidential election.

On it's way to being a stable democratic country? Like e.g. Egypt?
They didn't even have their first election without 200.000 troops making sure the result was "fair" so I'll wait till 2012 or when Maliki is ready to be reelected and watch.
Trying to makeover parts of the world without their consent, lacking moral high ground but with fake reasons even a 6year old can see through tends to not work.

I just popped my head back in here and caught up.

To clarify, Obama's plan was to simply withdraw from Iraq. That isn't a strategy, that isn't contingent on goals being met that is simply leaving. Big difference than what is happening and that is why you're wrong. Read what the PM said, short-term goals must be met and he wants a long-term (strategy?) with the US. That doesn't scream of "get out". That screams of "we're winning" and that isn't what Obama has been preaching.

One of the cornerstones in our success in Iraq has to do with this little piece of news that cropped up a month ago that hardly got noticed. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html

(to surmise) 18 months ago Iraqi militia turned over a treasure trove of information to the US Army and in that information it gave several methods Al Qaeda communicated, how it's organization worked, who they had working for them (in that area). From that they were presumably able to get other safehouses, members, informants etc... it's a great read. It really shows how and when the war turned around in my opinion.

Just to be clear, If we end up out of Iraq in two years it doesn't prove Obama right it only levels the playing field with the anti-war vote and McCain. This is a huge benefit to McCain because he can claim success with the surge (rightfully so, thanks to every Democrat saying it would never succeed and being so opposed to it, no spin in the world is going to convince people it wasn't an instrumental part of the Iraqi success) all while changing the election playing field. The dems can't say "He wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years" and it will shift to Afghanistan where Obama's hiding a dirty little secret that he's the guy who should have been gathering intelligence for the last eighteen months and courting NATO into putting more troops there (thanks Hillary! for that tidbit).

As a side note, I've been saying since abut January that I bet Bush & co would find a way for us to be out of Iraq or reduce troop levels by the time the election rolls around to negate the Democratic anti-war meme.

The legislative election is due for 2009, not 2012. I must admit that having American troops in Iraq to make sure that it is free and fair is important.

The Surge is a success, but you are right about it not being responsible for all of the improvements. The Surge of troops is just one of the important components of the Counter-Insurgency Strategy put in by Petreaus. Obama's recent political problems over the Surge is that he said in 2007 that the additional troops would actually make the sectarian violence worse in Iraq.

The Awakening Movement occuring was one of the reasons why the additional troops were requested. The American military wanted to support and grow the movement. Also, the Awakening would not have been as effective without the Counter-Insurgency strategy of paying it's "Sons of Iraq" to protect Sunni neighborhoods and drive out Al-Qaeda.

The continued training of the Iraqi Security Forces is the other main reason for improved security. The Iraqi forces were reaching critical mass in their size and training. In the beginning, the Surge Forces were used to retake bad areas in Baghdad and other parts of the country and then the Iraqi Security Forces would then move in to hold and secure them. As the Iraqi Forces got more confident near the end of the Surge, they were able to lead their own operations in Basra, Sadr City, Mosul & Amara. The Surge was the catalyst for this rapid improvement.

Sadr's cease-fire was very important as well and the additional troops of the Surge did not have anything to do with it. Sadr called the initial cease-fire after his militias and Iraqi government forces had a battle in one of the holy cities south of Baghdad. He was trying to improve his image in Iraqi public opinion.

You are wrong about Basra though. The British were pretty much driven out of Basra by the non-stop mortoring of their locations in the city. They stayed on their airport base as Basra got worse until the Iraqi Army's operation earlier this year. I think Basra was an example of a Province handover that was too soon. It was driven more by political reasons in Britain than actual security conditions in the Province.

Basra is an example of why I want Obama to tie his 16 month timetable to conditions on the ground. He shouldn't copy Gordon Brown's British example.

Why can't Iraqi troops make sure that it is free and fair?

Oh, I forgot...

Disregard the daily political violence and it's pretty easy to say "We won!".

Anyone saying, "We won!" is just as wrong as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, "We lost." like he did last year.

What do American soldiers know about overseeing elections? Why would they even know the rules of the Iraqi parliamentary system? Why would they have access to ballot boxes to see if they've been stuffed? Are they supposed to shoot anyone they think is playing silly buggers? The UN often oversees elections, why are occupying US soldiers necessary this time?

Nah, sounds like total bullshit to me. Total bullshit. Up there with Rumsfeld's defending the US's failure to maintain security upon invasion kind of bullshit. But let's pretend it's not bullshit. I say keep the 2000 or so soldiers this would require, and bring the other 158 000 home where they can't do any more harm.

Harry Reid is and always has been a moron and completely irrelevant.

Walled off ghettos and less people to kill doesn't equal progress. If your goal is population control, things are going swimmingly.

You implied people are claiming that, "We won!", but you want to ignore actual people who have already claimed, "We lost." The Senate Majority Leader, no less. A man who has power over Iraq War spending bills. No wonder you want to say it is irrelevant to your post. How convenient.

My goal is a stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq as I stated earlier in this thread. What is your goal? What kind of progress are you looking for in Iraq?

And you want to ignore the massive number of people here who thought the invasion was an illegal, immoral idea. You don't get credit for "winning" a conflict that never should have been fought in the first place.

Reid was right, we "lost" this war -- before the first fucking shot was ever fired.

What goal is it you think we liberal/Democrats want? Chaos? Bloodshed? Rape rooms? Chemical attacks? My goal is a stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq that doesn't require any more American blood.

I don't believe people who support the occupation when they say they want a peaceful, stable Iraq because invasion does not lead to peace and stability. Iraq was peaceful and stable beforehand. As for whether they want Iraq to be democratic or not, who cares what they want? This idea that it's okay to ruin countries then force the survivors to live the way you want them to is one I find particularly repugnant.

War apologists who claim they're concerned for the people of Iraq consistently and conveniently fail to address the Iraqis they've killed in the name of their altruism. They have to. What can they say? "It's worth it"? Well, bully for them if they think it's worth the lives of hundreds of thousands so those supporters can bask in the patriotic glow of US foreign policy, but I hold human beings in higher regard than that. Personally, I could live with the disappointment of apologists like Noah if it meant Iraq was back the way it was before the invasion because Iraqi lives are more important than American opinions.