JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Iraq says may agree timetable for U.S. withdrawal Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:54am EDT By Dean Yates and Ahmed Rasheed BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington. It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage. The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31. "Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. "One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time." Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television. U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Maliki caught Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a "dead end" after he complained Iraq's sovereignty was being infringed by U.S. demands. Both sides later said progress was being made. Maliki said the Iraqi and U.S. positions had gotten closer, but added "we cannot talk about reaching an agreement yet". He said foreign forces would need Iraqi permission for many of their activities once the U.N. mandate ended. "This means the phenomena of unilateral detention will be over, as well as unilateral operations and immunity," he said. Maliki did not clarify who the immunity referred to. Officials have said contractors working for the U.S. government would lose immunity from Iraqi law, but Washington is highly unlikely to let the same thing happen to U.S. solders. MALIKI WOOS ARAB STATES Maliki, dismissed as weak and ineffective for most of his tenure since taking over as prime minister in May 2006, has been increasingly assertive in recent months. He has launched crackdowns on Shi'ite militias and also al Qaeda, with U.S. forces playing a mainly supporting role. He has also called on Arab states to re-engage with Iraq. Sunni Arab countries have long been reluctant to extend full legitimacy to the Iraqi government because of the U.S. presence, as well as Baghdad's close ties to non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran. But Arab ties have begun to improve. The United Arab Emirates has cancelled almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, officials said on Sunday. And Jordan's King Abdullah is expected to visit Baghdad this week, the first Arab leader to do so since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Maliki did not specifically refer to the 150,000 American troops in Iraq, but they comprise the vast bulk of foreign forces in the country. He indicated the memorandum of understanding would be used instead of the formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) being negotiated. The MoU could be a stop-gap measure given some of the difficulties getting a full SOFA deal in place. Iraqi officials had said they would submit any SOFA to parliament, where it might be subject to long and bitter debate. Maliki has long come under pressure from the movement of powerful Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Sadr's movement quit Maliki's government last year when the prime minister refused to do so. Luwaa Sumaisem, head of the Sadr bloc's political committee, welcomed Maliki's comments on possibly setting a timetable. "This is a step in the right direction and we are ready to support him in this objective. We hope Maliki will show seriousness about it," Sumaisem said, without saying if the movement might then consider rejoining the government. Washington and Baghdad are also negotiating a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties. After five years in Iraq, the Bush administration had set an end-July target for wrapping up the negotiations. Some Iraqi officials had questioned whether the deadline could be met. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0353522920080707?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Why does Maliki hate freedom? (sorry, I've always wanted to use that ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Any talk about repaying us for the security we've been providing while they tried to figure out how to train police officers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Any talk about repaying us for the security we've been providing while they tried to figure out how to train police officers? They can feel free to pay us in oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 When you couple this with the fact that the Iraqi and US forces are basically running the last of Al-Queda out of the country. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece Pretty much says it all. I'd expect that barring some new conflict (ex. Israel/Iran), the vast majority of US troops will be out by the end of the decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 Any talk about repaying us for the security we've been providing while they tried to figure out how to train police officers? It's hard to give them an invoice when we are the ones who killed/Fired all the police which needed to be replaced. I thought this article was important, because even Barak Obama this weekend seemed to be backing away from his plans to take all of our troops out of Iraq in a timely mannor... ( last week was the first week no American soldier died in Iraq since our invasion... )... But American's can take heart. It seems likely the Iraqi's will ask us to leave. At which time we should be sure the President of Iraq who was elected under our watch doesn't have some sort of accident, or fall victem to a military Coupe, like President Diem did in Vietnam in the 1960's when he disagreed with US policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 When you couple this with the fact that the Iraqi and US forces are basically running the last of Al-Queda out of the country. It's hard to declair victory because Al Quada is been diminished... Knowing Alquada wasn't there when we invaded. Also knowing AQ has only been responsible for about 10% of the attacks on US soldiers while we've been there. Still declairing victory and withdrawling is our best case plan to leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 how can the presidential candidates take credit for this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Wonder what kind of impact this might have on the General Election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 how can the presidential candidates take credit for this one? Iraqi President can take credit..... I don't think either of our candidates will try. One or both might try to block it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 They better get something going. If the Dems win the White House, the Iraqis better have their **** covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 how can the presidential candidates take credit for this one? Obama can because he's said he wants to get out. Iraqi's know they better get their acts together. McCain can because he's scared the Iraqi's into thinking 100 years of occupation if they don't do something before he gets in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 Wonder what kind of impact this might have on the General Election? I was listening to the talking heads this weekend saying that there has been political progress in Iraq. I haven't been able to find any news detailing what progress has been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Any talk about repaying us for the security we've been providing while they tried to figure out how to train police officers? gahahahahaa repay... yeah ask bush about that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 ...But American's can take heart. It seems likely the Iraqi's will ask us to leave. At which time we should be sure the President of Iraq who was elected under our watch doesn't have some sort of accident, or fall victem to a military Coupe, like President Diem did in Vietnam in the 1960's when he disagreed with US policy. By this do you mean ask us to leave soon or in years? The majority does not want us gone . Everything I see points to major reductions in force at the end of the year,with continued bases and support for at least a decade.(which is plenty of time for the political system to be ingrained) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 gahahahahaa repay... yeah ask bush about that one. Iraq's oil exports are like 20-30 billion a year. The Iraq war is projected to cost us 3 trillion dollars, or the equivelent to 100 years of Iraqi oil exports if it was to end today, if we don't charge them interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 How much of this is CYA for him in case the Dems do win and do want to pull out? He can sit there and say, 'Well, I have been for them pulling out before the election even happened.' vs. a real desire to see us on a hard time line. I have little doubt that eventually the Iraqi goverment will ask us to leave, and when they do, we should leave (if not before). I do question whether he really has the desire to see us do it any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I was listening to the talking heads this weekend saying that there has been political progress in Iraq. I haven't been able to find any news detailing what progress has been made. You might send them a note or E-mail to cover the good news instead of simply the bad :laugh: 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met,it seems the Iraqi's are more productive than our own Congress. http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=51468&comview=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 By this do you mean ask us to leave soon or in years? It doesn't say does it.... The majority does not want us gone. Majority of Americans want us to leave. Poll: Majority of Americans want withdrawal plan for Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html The Majority of Iraqi's want us to leave. Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html the Majority of American service members want us to leave. 72% of U.S. Troops Want Out of Iraq Within One Year» http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/28/bushvstroops/ But you are correct, the majority of American polititians don't seem to want us to leave. Everything I see points to major reductions in force at the end of the year,with continued bases and support for at least a decade.(which is plenty of time for the political system to be ingrained) Well the surge troops are supposed to be coming home this month in July. That's some 30-40,000 troops. McCain's plan calls for decades, even a semi permenent occupational force like in Germany from 1945 - the end fo the cold war in the 1990's. Obama was calling for an "orderly withdrawl over 18 months" or so. But he seems to have backed off of that this last weekend and openned the door for a longer period of time. So you might be right on the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Obama was calling for an "orderly withdrawl over 18 months" or so. But he seems to have backed off of that this last weekend and openned the door for a longer period of time. Obama has called for immediate withdrawal of all forces ,partial withdrawal,wait and see on withdrawal at different times....he covered all the bases except stay till we win. The SOFA will determine the course of the future,not either candidate Not polls :laugh: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.michaelhoward The poll said 31% wanted troops to stay "a few years", while 25% said "about a year." 31+25= 56% Only 13% said they should leave now, while 20% said they should go "within 12 months". 56%+20%=76% The survey also found that half thought the US-led coalition was right to invade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Obama can because he's said he wants to get out. Iraqi's know they better get their acts together.McCain can because he's scared the Iraqi's into thinking 100 years of occupation if they don't do something before he gets in. and thats what I meant. of COURSE Obama can take credit for what the Iraqi president wants to do. Hell, he might as well take credit for the seven wonders of the world at the same time. And PS. McCain doesnt want to stay there 100 years. No more then Obama hates white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Iraq's oil exports are like 20-30 billion a year. The Iraq war is projected to cost us 3 trillion dollars, or the equivelent to 100 years of Iraqi oil exports if it was to end today, if we don't charge them interest. One of the few times I've agreed with Bush over the last eight years is on the issue of Iraq repaying us for the war, or for security, or other aspects of the occupation. First, we started the war, without any sovereign Iraqi body asking us to, and without any pre-war agreement on who would shoulder the costs. Second, there is no way that Iraq could ever pay us back, probably not even half the amount we've spent. Third, if we really want Iraq to succeed, they need less debt, not more. A few countries are already on board for debt forgiveness, and I think that is in everyone's long-term interests, and we need to just bite the bullet on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 The Majority of Iraqi's want us to leave. Your poll is old. The majority don't want us to leave now: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2008/0308opinion.pdf Q22 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave? Mar08 Aug07 Feb07 2005 % % % % Leave now 38 47 35 26 Remain until security is restored 35 34 38 31 Remain until the Iraqi government is stronge r 14 10 14 19? Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently 10 7 11 16 Remain longer but leave eventually 3 2 2 3 Never leave 1 - 1 1 Refused/don’t know - - - 4 Go through and look at the questions. Essentially, for every question, the responses are more positive in March '08 than Aug. '07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 You might send them a note or E-mail to cover the good news instead of simply the bad :laugh: 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met,it seems the Iraqi's are more productive than our own Congress. http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=51468&comview=1 The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25481841/ Problem with the article is Bush laid out the benchmarks as goals for 2007, not half way through 2008, and as of last Feb 2008, we had only hit 3 out of 18 according to independent observers. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/24/iraq-report-card-only-3-of-18-benchmarks-met/ Also the White house doesn't claim today we have achieved 15 of 18, the White house claims we have "made progress" on 15 of 18. And of coarse the White House claim directly refutes a GAO (non partisan Gov. Accounting Organization) report which came out last week which stated despite the reduction of violence, there hadn't been any progress on the political and economic problems of Iraq.. A report by the Government Accountability Office, released last week, cited little improvement in the political and economic spheres and noted continuing military problems despite a significant decline in overall violence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html Which is why I can't find a tally of exactly what political, economic or even security goals we've actually made in Iraq. I'm not saying they din't exist obviously Patreaus putting 80,000 former bathest insurgents on our payroll has stopped them from shooting at us, but is that a long term solution? Petreaus when he devised the strategy didn't think it was and said any security gains attributable to the surge alone would be temporary if no political compromise could be brokered. (General Patreaus)..."There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html And TWA, I'm not seeing any political compromise, so far in Iraq.. But maybe the news sources are wrong or not caught up yet. I'm still looking though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 JMS, didn't want you to miss this. http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5314617#post5314617 Check out the last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.