Iraq may set timetable for US withdrawal

[motivez]

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.

In a statement, Maliki's office said the prime minister made the comments about the security pact -- which will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31 -- to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.

"In all cases, the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq," the statement quoted Maliki as saying.

"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."

It said Maliki, who is on an official visit to the United Arab Emirates, was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security talks with the United States.

U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Maliki appeared to catch Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a "dead end". Both sides later said progress was being made.

...

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.

...

The statement from Maliki's office did not specifically refer to the 150,000 American troops in Iraq, but they comprise the vast bulk of foreign forces in the country.

By referring to a memorandum of understanding, Maliki's comments indicate this might be used as a stop-gap measure to govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq as opposed to the formal Status of Forces Agreement currently being negotiated.

It was unclear if a memorandum of understanding would need parliamentary approval. Iraqi officials had said they would submit any formal SOFA deal to parliament, where it might be the subject of acrimonious 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.

Last week, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said if no deal on the security pact is reached by the time the U.N. mandate expires, an extension could be sought or an interim deal made.

Zebari said positions on both sides had softened since talks to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq began a few months ago, but sticking points remained, including control of military operations and airspace.

...

By Dean Yates,
(Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed and Tim Cocks; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Iraq says may agree timetable for U.S. withdrawal | Reuters.com

This is good news, IMO. It's been known for a long time that Iraq wants us out, and it's time we start preparing to leave and allow them to take full control over their destiny as a sovereign nation

A timetable for leaving would seem to be against the desire of the Administration to stay long term (as evidenced by the construction of large, permanent bases), and I wonder if private security firms would be able to successfully defend the property of American companies (who will no doubt be doing business in the Iraqi oilfields) without such a large US military presence there

My biggest fear is there will be some kind of ethnic cleansing campaign of the minority factions once we leave, if that happens I think we'd be morally obligated to step back in, but if that happens hopefully it would be with some sort of true coalition with the UN and NATO involved in much bigger roles)..

[Ardentfrost]

IF we left... and IF there was some sort of ethnic cleansing...

By stepping back in, we would only be solidifying the hatred of that ethnic minority. We might already have done that sort of thing, but we're not helping by staying, and we wouldn't be helping by jumping back in to save a few lives.

I know it sounds harsh, but the mistakes we've made won't be fixed by us making more mistakes. I would donate to the Red Cross if they went over there to setup refugee camps on the border in the event it happened, but very little consequence would warrant us staying any longer or going back in once we left in my mind.

[motivez]

It puts an extraordinary strain on the border countries to take in that many refugees fleeing violence.. and it's not like they haven't already had to deal with people fleeing the horrific violence because of the war

And, while you may have a point, I don't see how we could morally sit by while people are slaughtered because of a power vacuum we left after departing. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it does, why shouldn't we try to save as many lives as we can?

[DosEquis]

I think when we do leave their democracy will change in to some sort of mix of theocracy and communism. Some of the freedoms will be limited for religious reasons and election results will probably be determined before the voting has been done.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

It puts an extraordinary strain on the border countries to take in that many refugees fleeing violence.. and it's not like they haven't already had to deal with people fleeing the horrific violence because of the war

And, while you may have a point, I don't see how we could morally sit by while people are slaughtered because of a power vacuum we left after departing. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it does, why shouldn't we try to save as many lives as we can?

Again, we fucked up. We're costing LOTS of lives currently, just by being there. There will be wars than spin off because of us being there with or without us leaving. There has been no stabilization by us being there, and us leaving will not change that immediately.

But by leaving it will happen sooner and be better in the long run.

When we left Vietnam, the resulting war between Cambodia and Vietnam cost a million lives. And yet, a generation (or two? how long is a generation?) later and we have relatively good relations with those countries... at least good trade relations.

The Iraqis and various sects will be better off faster by our leaving and butting out. This goes for every country we've ever been involved in. Well, there is one we didn't affect directly... we funded the opposition to Milosevic back in the 90's. That seemed to work well at the time, though I'm not really versed in the history of the area to know how it went since then. Surely better than when he was in power, though

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

It puts an extraordinary strain on the border countries to take in that many refugees fleeing violence.. and it's not like they haven't already had to deal with people fleeing the horrific violence because of the war

And, while you may have a point, I don't see how we could morally sit by while people are slaughtered because of a power vacuum we left after departing. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it does, why shouldn't we try to save as many lives as we can?

If you plan to stay there until they stop hating each other, we're gonna be there forever...

Just a thought

[kinggovernor]

the Marine Corps has been trying to get out of Iraq for some time now, we will be leaving soon

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the Marine Corps has been trying to get out of Iraq for some time now, we will be leaving soon

Would it be a stretch to say that the Iraqi's asking us to leave is simply a ploy to make us to save face? Say, they are asking us to leave and violence breaks out we can respond with "well they asked us to leave" kinda thing?

[ballz2wallz]

That's great! I think this is what the US needs to wait to hear...that our presence is no longer needed for stability in hte country, that Iraq and its leadership are able to protect and lead the country themselves, and that we can leave. Good news in Iraq!

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

If you plan to stay there until they stop hating each other, we're gonna be there forever...

Just a thought

That's a good point. We're never going to be able to accomplish that

It's just a hard moral issue because it's going to be our fault if there's ethnic cleansing

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

That's a good point. We're never going to be able to accomplish that

It's just a hard moral issue because it's going to be our fault if there's ethnic cleansing

It's going to be our fault no matter what....

unless everything is magical and wonderful and works out, then it'll be the Iraqis' doing.

[Smull]

There was ethnic cleansing before we arrived too, not that we should strive to leave Iraq as it was under Saddam...

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Would it be a stretch to say that the Iraqi's asking us to leave is simply a ploy to make us to save face? Say, they are asking us to leave and violence breaks out we can respond with "well they asked us to leave" kinda thing?

I think we have made real progress over the past several years and we are approaching a time for a stand down

[avsp]

AFAICT most of the geographic ethnic cleansing has already occured in Iraq

If CoW forces leave before a 'liberal' central state authority can suppress widespread secular/ethnic unrest then the problem will be for other countries in the region not to intervene

The house of Saud would fall if there was no protection for the Iraqi Sunnis, so they'd be compelled to intervene directly.

Once this happens then the SA oil facilities become targets & we're all f*cked

Its not a question of morals at all, its pragamtic judgements,
How likely is secular/ethnic comflict within Iraq without a strong central military presence on the street?
If its judged likely then can the iraqi state provide such a force?
If not then when will it be able to & what can be dome to aid the process?

How realistic are the asumptions built into our answers & are we prepared to accept the huge downside risk based on our uncertainites?

Given that iot was always very likely, being in the situation is a good enough reason not to've gone in the first place. This message was brought to you by 'to you so' enterprises inc, corp tm etc


I dont understand at all why ppl chose to see it any other way. The idea that 'morals' should be paramount, ..., well, ..., {insert 'band-aid/machine gun' comment here}


As for the idea that the Iraqis should/could set a timetable.
The very fact that the Kurds have been able to panic the Iraqi state into inviting tenders for long-term oil contracts before the legislature has decided how to split the proceeds just shows how very weak the Iraqi state is.
It would be a measure of some success if an agreement of understanding on CoW troop withdrawal that was acceptable to the Iraqi parliament could be drawn up, ..., regardless of what its says really

[motivez]

Looks like they'll insist on it if we want any type of agreement with them:

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable
Jul 8 09:17 AM US/Eastern

Write a Comment
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's national security adviser says his country will not accept any deal with the United States unless the agreement sets specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie come 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.

Al-Rubaie told reporters Tuesday the country "will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces."

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

[kombayn]

Good. Lets be done with this war.

[ballz2wallz]

If this happens in the last few months of Bush's term, will the next president try to take the credit?

Basically, since Obama's promise is to end the war and bring home the troops, and that's one of the major issues for his candidacy, what happens if it's finished before the next election? What does he have to run on then?

[motivez]

I don't think there's enough time to safely remove all of our troops to have it done by the time Bush leaves office, honestly

Although, Bush said if Maliki asked us to leave, we would.. but even though he wants a timetable, they were talking on NPR about him wanting it to be another 3 years or so before we left.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think there's enough time to safely remove all of our troops to have it done by the time Bush leaves office, honestly

Although, Bush said if Maliki asked us to leave, we would.. but even though he wants a timetable, they were talking on NPR about him wanting it to be another 3 years or so before we left.

Ok but that's my point. That's merely ally Obama is promising to do as well right? If we set up a timetable with Iraq now, and Bush is the man to do it, what is left for Obama to do? He won't go against what Iraq has set up in agreement with us would he? If this happens, Bush will be credited with it.

[motivez]

I think Obama's timetable for leaving would be what the commanders said was the quickest way to remove troops safely, rather than what Iraq wanted

I don't think there's going to be a long term agreement on a status of forces with Iraq until after Bush leaves office. On that same NPR segment they said that Iraq feels they may be able to get a better deal by waiting until the elections are over. And Iraq has elections coming up as well. They even mentioned that they had changed the name of the agreement to something that sounds far less binding.

I think that may be right, but I also don't think it's necessarily a good thing for a President who's term is winding down, who's so unpopular, to negotiate something long term while the country is going to vote on what course to take in the next election.

If they pick McCain, then he'll have the authority and the American people behind him when he negotiates a deal, if they pick Obama, the same is true.