Posted on 07/07/2008 2:27:21 PM PDT by mngran2
Iraq said for the first time today that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.
US President George Bush has long resisted any set schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out of Iraq, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. But an emboldened Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister who last week boasted he had crushed terrorism in Iraq, suggested it was time to start setting timelines.
“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," said Mr al-Maliki during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace.
Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
How about tomorrow, beotch?
I’m about fed up with the Iraqi government. We should leave and send them a bill for services rendered, and when the crap hits the fan again, charge them double to come back.
Nuts. No timetable for Malarkey.
If the alquada come back we will nuke'em, we will not spend one additional American life doing street to street fighting.
When we nuke the bad guys, don't whine about "collateral" damage.
I think that's just how the Brits talk: Churchill's navy, Patton's army, Bush's troops, etc. He is the commander in chief.
Note that Maliki’s words are being exaggerated in the article. And we have people here who are fed up w the Iraqis, etc. It’s their country, a timetable can be long, and Maliki isn’t that stupid to throw us out before he can survive. Relax.
I think there is something else in play here. I believe the situation in Iran truly scares Al Maliki. I believe he is afraid of being pulled into a war with Iran. and having to choose sides and igniting a real civil war in Iraq.
At this point, however, if he thinks we're ready to set a timetable, then perhaps we are. The reason not to was to prevent al Qaeda from taking advantage of the artificiality of scheduling. If they can no longer do so then we've accomplished what we set out to do.
“I think there is something else in play here. I believe the situation in Iran truly scares Al Maliki. I believe he is afraid of being pulled into a war with Iran. and having to choose sides and igniting a real civil war in Iraq.”
Do you mean that all of that good will between the U.S. and the Iraqi people would just disappear if we ever had to stand up to their muslim brethren in Iran? Tell me it ain’t so.
In any case a war with Iran has to be quick and decisive. Leave them no retaliation capability.
The Shi’a consider themselves the real Iraqis & the Sunnah the traitors who collaborated with the British & kept them out of power from the beginning.
“In any case a war with Iran has to be quick and decisive. Leave them no retaliation capability.”
Winning the war on terrorism is going to take killing a lot more of our enemies than we are right now. How many millions did we kill in WWll? Our military didn’t waste any time killing those in uniform out of fear of killing those not in the military during that war.
The muslim world will react in one of two ways. Either they will be scared shitless of us and realize that we’re not playing around anymore or they will unite against us. In my opinion, they’re already united against us and the point we are at is we won’t even call them the enemy and are trying to win over hearts and minds. Frankly, at the rate cultures and belief systems change over time, I just don’t think we have that kind of time on our side. It will take a cataclysmic attack on us to bring together what it takes to win militarily with the political possibilities.
This doesn't sound like a DEMAND to me! UK media...
Yep, just an attempt by the media to sensationalize some standard negotiations. Both the US and Iraq obviously have no desire to undermine all the progress made, and of course political realities mean that Iraq occasionally make sure to demonstrate it’s its own boss and drives policy decisions.
I’m sure this is as much an internal objective for Iraq (in that they would like to have the military capability to keep things stable without the coalition there) as it is any sort of indicator of tiredness of the US presence.
The quote on the immunity thing is of course overblown. Of course there are problems from time to time, but this is the exception not the rule and the fact that it is being brought up as a bigger issue than actually having to deal with al-Qaeda or “insurgents” is a great sign of success.
In other words: not that much to see hear, they’ll hash out the best strategic agreement possible and we’ll likely not hear much about it when it happens. :-)
This sounds like an Obama-generated July surprise. Someone should see if there have been trips to visit Malaki by members of Obama’s entourage.
If Malaki keeps asking for withdrawl, it will be easy for Obama to call for supporting this call, otherwise we could be labeled occupiers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.