AP: Iraq Insists on Withdrawl Timetable!!

[JMS]

So the reason we are negotiating a security agreement with Iraq is because the UN mandate expires Dec 2008. At that time we need to have an agreement with the Government in place to "legalize", "legitamize" our occupation.

Here's the timetable which the Iraqi's want... occupation reviewed every six months, beginning after we hand over security for all 18 provinces to the Iraqis; Total Pull out in three to five years........ At 11 Billion a month!!!

11 billion $ times 12 months in a year times 5 years... another $660 billion, would be convient to the Iranian leaning Iraqi Shia government..

Good for them, I hope we are out of there long before this; now that we have put to bed this idea we will be in there semi permently for decades; and IRaq will become our permanent base in the gulf.

Declare victory and pull out...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91PNNM81&show_article=1

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetableJul 8 10:34 AM US/Eastern

By SALLY BUZBEE

Associated Press WriterBAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control. The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.........

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Good. Now on to finish the job in Afghanistan.

[Toe Jam]

Yes!

This is great news.

Too bad Bush and company will find a way to keep us there anyway.

[Slateman]

Not until we get our oil . . .

[JMS]

Not until we get our oil . . .

we are paying 146 dollars for oil pumped out of Texas, Arkansas, and Alaska. I'm sure Iraq even under Saddam Heusin would sell us oil at those prices.

Besides it costs 11 billion a month to occupy Iraq and Iraq pumpts only about 20-30 billion dollars of oil a year.

We are way better off financially to let them keep the oil and we just withdrawl our troops.

[hokie4redskins]

Is there a reason you started two identical threads?

[JMS]

Is there a reason you started two identical threads?

They aren't identical. It's a new article from a different publication giving new information on the Iraqi position.

(1) Iraq is insisting on a withdrawl Timetable, before they were just "bringing it up"... ( This is totally new. )

(2) They are publically stating what they think that timetable should be.

( Also new. )

[twa]

Quote

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control. The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.........How is this new? :laugh:

[PeterMP]

Quote

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control. The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.........How is this new? :laugh:

How is this a time table?

[JMS]

How is this new? :laugh:

twa read the article again. US troops will leave the cities after we turn over all the provinces to the IRaqi's... But then they would pull out of Iraq entirely based on when that turn over occurs...

It's new because it's an explicite timetable which no American leader would support. And most of the Republicans and American military leaders were actively fighting against.

It's new because the Iraqi's are insisting upon it, not just "brining it up" as a deal breaker in the new security agreement which we must sign before the end of December.

[JMS]

How is this a time table?

Iraq is insisting on withdrawl timetable.. that's the title of the article.

What they put forward in the article is the outline of the timetable which they would be agreable to.

Come on man... this is a ground shaker. Especially with Obama seemingly openning the door on a longer term deployment last week..

[twa]

No ...it is not pulling out entirely....The idea all along was to turn over and withdraw to bases SEPARATE from Iraq cities.(aside from advisor's and instructors)...the only thing halfway new is the review timelines which is part of what is being decided.

[stevenaa]

Iraq is insisting on withdrawl timetable.. that's the title of the article.

What they put forward in the article is the outline of the timetable which they would be agreable to.

Come on man... this is a ground shaker. Especially with Obama seemingly openning the door on a longer term deployment last week..

No they're not insisting on a timetable. They're insisting on a review of our involvment every 6 months for what they speculate will be 3-5 years. This is not a timetable that states we should be out by a certain date. And this is hardly a ground shaker, IMO. It is exactly what we should hope for. Iraqi's handling their own security rendering our presence unnecessary.

[Slateman]

Well I insist on free oil . . .

[PeterMP]

Iraq is insisting on withdrawl timetable.. that's the title of the article.

What they put forward in the article is the outline of the timetable which they would be agreable to.

Come on man... this is a ground shaker. Especially with Obama seemingly openning the door on a longer term deployment last week..

Come on... this is ONE politician, and it isn't the first time somebody over there has called for our withdrawl.

Based on what is written on the actual Iraqi proposal, can you tell me when we would no longer have troops in Iraq?

I can't. It seems that for the next 3-5 years, our status there will be reviewed every 6 months based on what the Iraqis have actually proposed.

[JMS]

No ...it is not pulling out entirely....The idea all along was to turn over and withdraw to bases SEPARATE from Iraq cities.(aside from advisor's and instructors)...the only thing halfway new is the review timelines which is part of what is being decided.

Absolutely correct... that was OUR(Bush's) plan...

The Iraqi's are saying... after that turn over, after we withdrawl from their cities, They will review their need for our soldiers every 6 months and within 3-5 years signal the removal of all American forces from their country.....

That's what I read.. They are telling Bush he's going to have to agree to a time table for a complete withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq. Something Bush has refused to do...

So much for an advanced Base in Iraq as a justification for the war... A front against Iranian agression.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said

[PeterMP]

The Iraqi's are saying... after that turn over, after we withdrawl from their cities, They will review their need for our soldiers every 6 months and within 3-5 years signal the removal of all American forces from their country.....

1. Actually, that's not what it says. They say they will review every 6 months for the next 3-5 years. Not that we would be out in that time. It isn't clear what would happen at the 5 year point if the decision had been made not remove American troops. Presumably, a new process/proceduere would have to put in place.

2. I don't think is what most people in America, at least, consider a timetable. I'm for leaving when the Iraqis want us to (if not before). I'm not for a timetable. I have no problem with this. This is completely different than the American politician lexicon for a timetable that includes a date at which the US will have no troops in Iraq (e.g. Obama in 16 months).

[twa]

Hasn't Bush said repeatedly IF the Iraqi government asks us to leave we will?.....Hasn't turning over security and responsibility been the plan all along?

I'm not seeing much new.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

1. Actually, that's not what it says. They say they will review every 6 months for the next 3-5 years. Not that we would be out in that time. It isn't clear what would happen at the 5 year point if the decision had been made not remove American troops. Presumably, a new process/proceduere would have to put in place.

2. I don't think is what most people in America, at least, consider a timetable. I'm for leaving when the Iraqis want us to (if not before). I'm not for a timetable. I have no problem with this. This is completely different than the American politician lexicon for a timetable that includes a date at which the US will have no troops in Iraq (e.g. Obama in 16 months).

Actually, I think they are explicitly asking for Obama's proposal: a timetable to leave with the ability to re-evaluate the situation as the removal of troops occurs.

[JMS]

Come on... this is ONE politician, and it isn't the first time somebody over there has called for our withdrawl.

Based on what is written on the actual Iraqi proposal, can you tell me when we would no longer have troops in Iraq?

I can't. It seems that for the next 3-5 years, our status there will be reviewed every 6 months based on what the Iraqis have actually proposed.

Peter, one of the last justifications for the IRaq war the neo cons are still Klinging too is it gives us a permanent advanced base in the Persian Gulf. Something which we have long desired. And right on Iran's boarder too.

This isn't just "some polititian".. This is the Iraqi national security advisor. This is the guy who we are currently negotiating the security agreement with. They are flat out telling us... FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91PNNM81&show_article=1

[twa]

U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. :laugh:

[PeterMP]

Actually, I think they are explicitly asking for Obama's proposal: a timetable to leave with the ability to re-evaluate the situation as the removal of troops occurs.

No. Even the whole thing doesn't kick in UNTIL they have control over all the provinces (right now they are at 9 of 18). Then all American troops will leave the cities (not the country). Then there will be a review every 3 to 5 years.

Even turning over the provinces to Iraqi control is event driven not timeline drive:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20883940/

And the whole thing is only for once they have control of all of the provinces.

[PeterMP]

Peter, one of the last justifications for the IRaq war the neo cons are still Klinging too is it gives us a permanent advanced base in the Persian Gulf. Something which we have long desired. And right on Iran's boarder too.

This isn't just "some polititian".. This is the Iraqi national security advisor. This is the guy who we are currently negotiating the security agreement with. They are flat out telling us... FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE

Well, I don't agree with that. You can't stay where a country doesn't want you to stay.

Like I said, a politician saying one thing when the proposal they've submitted says something else.

[JMS]

Actually, I think they are explicitly asking for Obama's proposal: a timetable to leave with the ability to re-evaluate the situation as the removal of troops occurs.

So to recap... PM of Iraq says Monday... we want a timeline for the withdrawl of all US forces.... President Bush spokesman says latter that day; Bush did not believe "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals"... To which the National security advisor to the Prime Minister of Iraq responds... "his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces"!!!

Obama said he would have us out in 16 months.... on our terms. We decide when we leave and how.

This proposal says, after we turn over all 18 provinces to Iraq.. ( currently we've turned over only 8 ).. Then basically the Iraqi's would decide on a bi yearly basis for the next 3-5 years on whether they needed us there....

hardly the same positions..

[PeterMP]

Obama said he would have us out in 16 months.... on our terms. We decide when we leave and how.

This proposal says, after we turn over all 18 provinces to Iraq.. ( currently we've turned over only 8 ).. Then basically the Iraqi's would decide on a bi yearly basis for the next 3-5 years on whether they needed us there....

hardly the same positions..

AT BEST, the Iraqis are on a COMPLETELY different time scale. years vs. months.

That's at best.

Does anybody know how binding is this agreement?

Can Obama claim (now or once in office) that by international law or some such thing that he is BOUND to the agreement to keep troops in Iraq as agreed to by Bush?