AP: Iraq Insists on Withdrawl Timetable!!

[Duckus]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080708173950.vpy06uxo&show_article=1

US rejects Iraqi demand for troops' withdrawal timeline

Jul 8 01:39 PM US/Eastern

The United States on Tuesday rejected a demand from Iraq for a specific date for pullout of US-led foreign troops from the country, saying any withdrawal will be based on conditions on the ground.

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

Iraq said on Tuesday it will reject any security pact with the United States unless it sets a date for the pullout of US-led troops.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.

The controversial demand from Baghdad's Shiite-led government underlines Iraq's new hardened stand in complex negotiations aimed at striking a security deal with Washington.

Interesting

[JMS]

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.

Pete.. The PM of Iraq brought up a timeline for ending the occupation last monday... Bush responded that he didn't believe the PM was discussing a hard dead line latter that day. Today Tuesday the Natonal Security Advisor to the PM says, basically no deal without specific dates for withdrawl...

"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.

Pete this isn't just some guy talking.... Our legal umbrulla for the occupation ends December 2008... We are in active negotiations with the government of Iraq for a new security agreeement. So far we have backed away from key items we wanted in such an agreement... Such as immunity of prosecution for our contractors and soldiers. Now the Iraqi's are saying.. Oh and by the way.. we want to know the specific date which you will be leaving!!!..

[JMS]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080708173950.vpy06uxo&show_article=1

Interesting

Very Interesting....

[ECU-ALUM]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080708173950.vpy06uxo&show_article=1

Interesting

Oh crap! This could get ugly in a hurry.

[JMS]

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?

We had UN authorization for occupying Iraq after we invaded. That authorization ends in Demember 2008. We can't get another one from the UN because now Iraq has a recognized government. So any "security agreeemnt" would have to come directly from the Shia government....

It's not like if we didn't comply they could evict us. But it would be a huge black eye diplomatically for us. Basically we would be staying over the objection of the democratically elected government which we installed in power....

It's a large embarresment factor, which would compound quickly over time...

I don't think the agreement would bind Obama to keep forces there.... It's not like the agreement will state how many forces we will need to keep in Iraq.... Not even Bush is that stupid...

[JMS]

Oh crap! This could get ugly in a hurry.

Yep... in Vietnam when Diem started giving us Crap that's when we engineered the Coup against him..... This could get ugly in a hurry... Although it happening in an election cycle and in the last months of a lame duck administration limits how ugley we are likely willing to go.

[DjTj]

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..

Well, Obama has still reserved the right to modify his plan based on information from the commanders on the ground, so he is definitely softening his stance.

The reality on both sides is that everyone wants us to withdraw, and that it will have to be at least somewhat dependent upon conditions on the ground. It will be interesting to see how this negotiation shakes out, but there is really only one logical outcome, and it's a flexible withdrawal plan. The Iraqis will get there, the Bush administration will get there, and both Obama and McCain will get there too, with difference in the details, of course.

I really don't think it will get too ugly. This is a negotiation and there is some posturing going on, but in the end both sides will get what they want with a flexible withdrawal date.

[PeterMP]

Well, Obama has still reserved the right to modify his plan based on information from the commanders on the ground, so he is definitely softening his stance.

Not to make this political, but:

"Yesterday, Obama struck back, declaring that Clinton "doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue." And he added that, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused.""

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/?page=1

I think this is mostly political posturing by the Iraqis and that they are worried about what happens if Obama wins the election, and the US is out of there in 2009. They don't want to be seen as having been in bed w/ the Americans if that happens.

If the thing essentially allows us to keep troops there for the next several years, Bush should just agree and move on. I'm sure if needed and we want it can be changed later if both sides agree.

[JMS]

Well, Obama has still reserved the right to modify his plan based on information from the commanders on the ground, so he is definitely softening his stance.

I agree, which makes this Iraqi position even more important. So even if Obama's national security advisors are twisting his arm not to give up strategically important bases; The Iraqi's are going to make him. ( Actually they are going to make Bush agree to terms which Obama will have to honor.. )

The reality on both sides is that everyone wants us to withdraw, and that it will have to be at least somewhat dependent upon conditions on the ground. It will be interesting to see how this negotiation shakes out, but there is really only one logical outcome, and it's a flexible withdrawal plan. The Iraqis will get there, the Bush administration will get there, and both Obama and McCain will get there too, with difference in the details, of course.

I disagree.. I believe there is a significant and important voice in both parties which wants us in Iraq indefinitely. The Persian gulf is the most strategic area of the world, and a forward base on Iran's boarders gives us huge leverage there. What the Iraqi's are saying is basically; that's not going to happen.

And while your statement above sounds reasonable... The Iraqi's position is not reasonble.... They are flat out stating they will sign no security agreement with us which doesn't contain dates. Something which will greatly embarress Bush if he has to do, and could mean we will leave before Bush's term ends if Bush doesn't do.

I really don't think it will get too ugly. This is a negotiation and there is some posturing going on, but in the end both sides will get what they want with a flexible withdrawal date.

One would think 3-5 years, starting the clock sometime into the future would be flexible.... But I disagree that this administration or many military strategiests for the United States are going to "get what they want" out of this agreement.

As Zoed has pointed out in several posts. Those bases were are buiding in Iraq are permenenet bases, not temporary. Our military was planning for a long stay...

[DjTj]

Not to make this political, but:

"Yesterday, Obama struck back, declaring that Clinton "doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue." And he added that, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused.""

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/?page=1

That article and quote are from March, in the heat of the primaries.

Obama recently said, "when I go to Iraq, and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

And then he later said: "I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month"

Today's Post has an editorial on Obama's softening stance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702219.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Chief skin]

The Iraq government is kicking the invaders out period. How is Cheney going to spin this

[JMS]

The Iraq government is kicking the invaders out period. How is Cheney going to spin this

Like I said, When this happenned in Vietnam and our guy Diem started to give us crap..... We had him killed (Johnston(dem)).... If history is any precident, there isn't much we wouldn't do if we think our objective is important enough...

In this case the objectives is basically the only rational left which could attempt to justify our invasion. It is basically the only positive legacy Bush has to hold on too. He secured important bases in the Persian gulf which greatly enhanced security and our interests in that strategic region of the world for future generations... Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars at stake if we are foced into a premature withdrawl...

Cheney is old school. I just don't think Cheney has the clout he once had; nor do I think Republicans want to throw a stink bomb like that in the middle of an election cycle....

The Republicans will likely loose the Presidency, but it's possible for them to hold a workable minority capable of obstruction in one or both of the houses. They get creative in Iraq at the end of an election cycle... all bets are off.

[GibbsFactor]

Very Interesting....

Not interesting, just common sense.

[PeterMP]

That article and quote are from March, in the heat of the primaries.

Obama recently said, "when I go to Iraq, and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

And then he later said: "I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month"

Today's Post has an editorial on Obama's softening stance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702219.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Actually his position hardened (in terms of us getting out) and now seems to be pretty consistent. At one time, he supported the idea that now that we are in Iraq that we should stay and finish the job:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

"Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq."

My point was that since adopting 16 months it has happened before and he has always come back to 16 months:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/07/03/obama-iraq.html

(from July 3rd)

"He said he was not searching for "manoeuvring room" in regards to his position, and that when he talked earlier about refining his policy, he was not referring to his 16-month timeline.

Obama said he was speaking about how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed "`to be sure al-Qaeda doesn't re-establish a foothold there."

He said he intends to stick to his plans to have all troops out within 16 months but that if the safety of American troops dictated a slower pace, "of course we would take that into account.""

The samething happened in March. One of his aides came out and said he would asses the situation when he became President, but he ended up coming back to 16 months. The samething here. His comment suggested softening, but when pushed, he came back to 16 months.

I don't doubt that he has shifted, and his view no longer matches his public statement (hence the question about how binding the agreement w/ the Bush administration was). But realistically he's stuck.

His biggest problem is that he oppossed the surge because his (at least stated) belief was that the answer was fewer American troops not more was the solution. If he admits that things are going well enough that it is worth to leave American troops there for reasons other than the safety of American troops, then he has to admit that he was on the wrong side of the arguement with respect to the surge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/today_is_obamas_iraq_withdrawa.html

In a statement dated January 19, 2007, Obama said,

"I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress."

If he admits he was on the wrong side of that arguement though, it opens him up to all of the criticisms about his lack of experience.

Add into that JMSs' polls about opinion on the Iraq war were right. More Americans want a quick pull out now than ever before. To flip from that point of view to the other (even if it is right) would be political suicide.

Anyway, if I were advising him, I'd tell him not to talk about revising his position because I think violence there will be back up by the Nov. election anyway.

I actually think on this issue, he (assuming he doesn't change it this summer) is in a better position than McCain is (at least since the primarys started because you can go back and pull up quotes from before that where McCain talks about the need for the Iraqis to stand up and the need for them to take the lead in the fighting).

Pre-primary: I think McCain had the advantage (surge, political movement, and Iraqis standing up) over Obama (pull out ASAP; though as stated above Obama's position at one point was pretty much the same as McCain's. They diverged w/ the surge, which I am calling a pre-primary point in time.).

Primary: I think Obama took the lead (McCain talking about being there indefinitely with NO TALK about measuring if/how the situation was improving) and Obama at least having some plan for us to get out. I liked Biden the best though from what I know.

Now, I'm not sure who has the edge between McCain and Obama.

[PeterMP]

Like I said, When this happenned in Vietnam and our guy Diem started to give us crap..... We had him killed (Johnston(dem)).... If history is any precident, there isn't much we wouldn't do if we think our objective is important enough...

Kennedy was President when Diem was killed and by most accounts, we didn't want Diem killed just removed from office.

[Thiebear]

The Iraq government is kicking the invaders out period. How is Cheney going to spin this

The constant drive by's without reading is getting old fast.

[DjTj]

The samething happened in March. One of his aides came out and said he would asses the situation when he became President, but he ended up coming back to 16 months. The samething here. His comment suggested softening, but when pushed, he came back to 16 months.

I don't doubt that he has shifted, and his view no longer matches his public statement (hence the question about how binding the agreement w/ the Bush administration was). But realistically he's stuck.

Well, I think that politically he is stuck. Realistically, after he is President, I would almost guarantee that he will move to a more flexible approach. He has to reiterate 16 months whenever he is pushed, but he has managed to keep a little bit of wiggle room.

His biggest problem is that he oppossed the surge because his (at least stated) belief was that the answer was fewer American troops not more was the solution. If he admits that things are going well enough that it is worth to leave American troops there for reasons other than the safety of American troops, then he has to admit that he was on the wrong side of the arguement with respect to the surge.

I don't think that's as much of a trap as you think. McCain will try to pin him down as being opposed to the surge, but Obama could easily say that much of the progress has come not as a result of the surge but as a result of progress by the Iraqis, and as that progress continues, we should withdraw ... there's a lot of complexity to the Iraq issue, which both candidates can exploit to hit their own talking points.

Anyway, if I were advising him, I'd tell him not to talk about revising his position because I think violence there will be back up by the Nov. election anyway.

Perhaps, but you don't really want to place your bet on events that are largely out of your control. Obama is going to keep trying to maintain a bit of wiggle room, and McCain would be wise to do the same.

Now, I'm not sure who has the edge between McCain and Obama.

I don't know about having an edge, but all that matters is that there is a distinction that allows Americans a choice. I think the distinction may be as small as McCain starting his sentences with: "We must stay in Iraq until ..." and Obama starting his sentences with: "We must leave Iraq when ..." But as long as there is a distinction, the American people can make a choice based on whether they thing we should stay or go. All the debate about benchmarks and timetables is just political posturing ... there is a clear philosophical difference there between McCain and Obama that I think will make the candidates good proxies for the larger issue of what Americans want regarding Iraq.

[JMS]

Not interesting, just common sense.

? This will be the lead story in every broadcast and cable news show this evening. (Even Fox) It will be on the front page of every newspaper tommorrow.

I guess I'm in good company claiming it's very interesting.

Hell the PM just bringing up a time table made the front page in the post today. The Iraqi's making it a condition of a security agreement is ground breaking.

This very well could be the end of the Iraqi war right here.

[PeterMP]

Well, I think that politically he is stuck.

I don't think that's as much of a trap as you think. McCain will try to pin him down as being opposed to the surge, but Obama could easily say that much of the progress has come not as a result of the surge but as a result of progress by the Iraqis.

1. Why is he politically stuck then?

2. That woudln't fly in any interview or debate. He'd get hammered on multiple fronts, including main stream sources like the Washington Post, if he tried to push that idea.

[JMS]

Kennedy was President when Diem was killed and by most accounts, we didn't want Diem killed just removed from office.

By most accounts? They burried him next to the American Ambasidors home. No symbology there. Diem was a convience store owner from New Jersey, who we installed in office; and when he was no longer useful we engineered his coup and his murder.

Least that's what Robert Strange McNamara stated in his 1995 book on Vietnam.

In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam

[ECU-ALUM]

? This will be the lead story in every broadcast and cable news show this evening. (Even Fox) It will be on the front page of every newspaper tommorrow.

I hope you're right JMS I really do.

My one regret...this is going on while Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" are on vacation.

[DjTj]

1. Why is he politically stuck then?

He is politically stuck because the left-wing of the Democratic Party won't budge. It's the same reason McCain can't even propose a hypothetical date for withdrawal - his Party won't let him. They are both politically stuck to polar opposite positions when I really believe that the two men are not really that far apart.

2. That woudln't fly in any interview or debate. He'd get hammered on multiple fronts, including main stream sources like the Washington Post, if he tried to push that idea.

I think it would fly perfectly fine. We have been using very large numbers of Sunni fighters to help keep the peace, and the Iraqis have certainly contributed greatly to their own progress. He doesn't need to disparage the surge, but he can certainly point to other contributing factors and draw a distinction with McCain, who wants to claim that everything good that has happened in Iraq was a result of the surge that he supported.

[PeterMP]

By most accounts? They burried him next to the American Ambasidors home. No symbology there. Diem was a convience store owner from New Jersey, who we installed in office; and when he was no longer useful we engineered his coup and his murder.

Least that's what Robert Strange McNamara stated in his 1995 book on Vietnam.

In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

A White House tape of President Kennedy and his advisers, published this week in a new book-and-CD collection and excerpted on the Web, confirms that top U.S. officials sought the November 1, 1963 coup against then-South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem without apparently considering the physical consequences for Diem personally (he was murdered the following day).

Are you sure?

"Both McNamara and historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a participant as White House historian, record that President Kennedy blanched at the news and was shocked at the murder of Diem."

[PeterMP]

He doesn't need to disparage the surge, but he can certainly point to other contributing factors and draw a distinction with McCain, who wants to claim that everything good that has happened in Iraq was a result of the surge that he supported.

But he already did disparge the surge before it happened.

[JMS]

( On attributing the lull in violence to something other than the surge..)

2. That woudln't fly in any interview or debate. He'd get hammered on multiple fronts, including main stream sources like the Washington Post, if he tried to push that idea.

I don't think that's accurate. Not with Patreaus's testomony on the hill stating flatly that there was no military solution in Iraq.. and then citing several non surge related reasons for the lull in violence....

Patreaus said the reasons for the lull in violence had to do with Al Quada allienating their sunni hosts who turned against them, and our ability to exploit that division.. Along with some key Sunni leaders who agreed to substancial arms and money to help them snuff out AQ, in exchange for softenning their position on killing Americans.

Patreaus himself said the sucess of the surge was as much a change in tactics as it was our increased military footprint on the ground.

He also said, as you know, any sucess would be temporary and dependent upon a political settlement between the Shia and Sunni. Which to my understanding has not yet occured.