Forums | MacLife

Don't forget Poland

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday no security agreement with the United States could be reached unless it included a "specific deadline" for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

Last week, U.S. and Iraqi officials said the two sides had agreed tentatively to a schedule which included a broad pullout of combat forces by the end of 2011 with a residual U.S. force remaining behind to continue training and advising the Iraqi security forces.

But al-Maliki's remarks Monday suggested that the Iraqi government is still not satisfied with that arrangement. An aide to the prime minister said Monday that Iraq remained adamant that the last American soldier must leave Iraq by the end of 2011 _ regardless of conditions at the time.

"There can be no treaty or agreement except on the basis of Iraq's full sovereignty," al-Maliki told a gathering of tribal sheiks. He said such an agreement must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame."

The Bush administration now speaks about "time horizons," but even that now appears unacceptable to al-Maliki's government.

"We find this to be too vague," a close al-Maliki aide told The Associated Press on Monday. "We don't want the phrase 'time horizons.' We are not comfortable with that phrase," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing negotiations.

Another top al-Maliki aide, also speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason, said the Iraqi government has "stopped talking about the withdrawal of combat troops. We just talk about withdrawals," including trainers and logistics troops.

Link.

Somebody needs to tell the Iraqis about "FACTS ON THE GROUND."

It's true.

JakeTheTall wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

menglish wrote:

Is it surrender to leave because you finally come to the realization that it was all just a big mistake and you weren't even supposed to be there today?

Pretty much, yeah. It kind of sounds like its a built in component of your statement, actually.
Though, is it in our long term interest to have Iraq be relatively stable or to have Iraq be a haven for terrorists, or ruled by a dictator with a WMD program who defied the international community for more than a decade, or to have Iraq fall apart due to lack of security and have the violence spread across the middle east?

I kind of like the stable Iraq idea myself. It has a nice ring to it. Am I expecting a utopia? No, but would I be happy with something better than Sadaam's Iraq that we aren't containing for the next 10 years? Wow, sounds pretty good to me.

I like how you bring up the WMD program, even though it never existed in any viable way.

It existed in his head, doesn't that count?

And just a month ago McCain knew that his friend Maliki (whom he knows rather well / very, very well ) wouldn't firmly ask us to leave (in addition to saying Maliki would always base it on conditions on the ground).

Link of McCain being incorrect

Good thing McCain has a solid grasp on foreign policy, especially Iraq.

FACTS ON THE GROUND win out! 

Oh wait....

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States asked Iraq for permission to maintain a troop presence there to 2015, but U.S. and Iraqi negotiators agreed to limit their authorization to 2011, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.

"It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said in an interview with al-Hurra television, a transcript of which was posted on his party's website on Wednesday.

Link.

They must have had a disagreement over what the FACTS ON THE GROUND in the future would be.

Well, all's well, they got a one year extension.

I'd prefer 12 succinct months. Of withdrawal.

It'd be better than 12 succinct papers out of the bowels of the AEI.

Last edited by daemon (2008-08-27 11:18 am)

bratboy wrote:

FACTS ON THE GROUND win out! 

Oh wait....

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States asked Iraq for permission to maintain a troop presence there to 2015, but U.S. and Iraqi negotiators agreed to limit their authorization to 2011, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.

"It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said in an interview with al-Hurra television, a transcript of which was posted on his party's website on Wednesday.

Link.

They must have had a disagreement over what the FACTS ON THE GROUND in the future would be.

Talibani said this: "It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said in an interview with al-Hurra".
What might cause Iraqis to extend the presence of said troops? Could it be something like, I don't know, facts on the ground? At its most basic. we should have troops there because of the need to have troops there and not leaving because we set a date, despite the fact that were we to leave by that date it will cause the Iraqis and US a lot of problems that didn't have to occur if instead we withdrew based on actual facts as they were occuring.

Case in point. Today or tomorrow we are turning over the Anbar province to Iraqi control. Can they handle it? We certainly hope so (and again it points out to how we've already won this war, despite the caterwauiling from the left about this endeavor), but shouldn't we wait to see what happens there before assuming we can get out by 2011 or 2015, for example? ie. if we turn over the province and they can't control the province that we turned over, then shouldn't that then dictate our plans going forward? ie, we shouldn't turn over another province till they can control it and may need to put in more people or reallocate troops from other provinces to retake anbar. That requires generals on the ground doing something then testing the results. If they can control said province then we give them another province as we've been doing all along. If that can be done by 2011, then thanks George Bush and General Patreus and the surge strategy, you've succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. I'd rather have us leave because we're done there and there is no longer a need to have troops doing the Iraqis jobs for them.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-08-27 2:15 pm)

everlong205 continues counting his chickens before they are hatched....

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

The worst calamity and foreign policy disaster ever(!) was resolved peacefully...

What a bizarre statement.

As opposed to us leaving because a civil war was raging and it was too hot for us to stay there, or because Iraq was proceeiding towards an inevitable genocide which was predicted by the dems and their brethren.

Think about if, for example we left when Murtha was counseling us leaving because we were a target and because the war is lost (as per harry reid) or as per the NYT suggestion that a genocide may well ensue, but that we still had to leave. Having us work out an orderly withdrawal with the govt of Iraq, is a lot different than us leaving there because we've lost and the terrorists/insurgents won and drove us out.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-08-27 2:59 pm)

It wasn't "resolved peacefully!"  It was "resolved" (or at some point might be "resolved") through warfare that cost billions upon billions of dollars and resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. 

I thought the whole objection to a "timetable" was that the terrrrists would know when we were going to leave and plan accordingly.  How is this any different?

Granted, Bush had it right in 1999:

Bush wrote:

I think it’s also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.