US And Iraq Have A Withdrawal Plan
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, United States, WarWith a start date of June 30, 2009 no less!
The negotiations over a withdrawal timetable follow long insistence by President Bush that setting any schedule for U.S. troops to leave would be dangerous. The draft agreement with Iraq would link troop reductions to achievement of certain security milestones, although the details have not been made public.
Listen, we all knew that we would have to set some type of timetable at some point. And to suggest otherwise wasn’t being honest with reality. We couldn’t leave in the middle of the night, and a reasonable withdrawal date was always in the card.
Still, this latest agreement is thin on details, and I don’t think we know yet if the US will have permanent bases in Iraq. My guess is that Bush would insist on it, and that would be a key concession for US withdrawal. But we don’t know quite yet…
A key part of the U.S.-Iraqi draft agreement envisions the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s cities by next June 30, according to Iraqi and American officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposed deal’s details have not been publicly announced. A related issue is setting additional timelines for troop withdrawals, including a date by which all U.S. forces would be gone.Said Zebari: “This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces.”
So, will this plan embolden the terrorists? Will it create more violence in Iraq? Will it completely destabilize the Middle East?
I’ll have more as it develops…
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 21st, 2008 and is filed under Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, United States, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 am
No, because we have essentially won the war. Nobody will say it directly because they don’t want to put up the “Mission Accomplished” banner, for obvious reasons. However, this “timetable” is basically an administrative one based on estimates of how long it will take to complete the construction of Iraqi security infrastructure, and to move out American heavy armor – without enemy resistance since the resistance has been almost completely destroyed.
Its like the “timetable” that was set to withdraw forces from Berlin after the furerbunker was destroyed, or after the Japanese aristocrats finished their pleasure cruise on the USS Missouri.
So much for this “unwinnable war” with “no end in sight.”
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 am
It’s appeasement! The president is weak on terrorism! The terrorist have won! Now the terrorists will just sit back and wait until we are gone to take over the country! All our soldiers died for nothing! We gotta stay to protect freedom!
There, I just took care of the posts for all of my GOP friends who have been screaming these cliches for years now….oh, wait, Bush is making this deal?
What the heck?
Uhm, crap, now what do they say?
I was against withdrawl before I was for it?
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
I believe that in the near term, the agreement calls for the pullback from major Iraqi cities as soon as June 09. Coalition forces would concentrate in relatively remote bases of operations where they can support the Iraqi military and law enforcement infrastructure as needed, but be far less visible.
The actual pullout of all troops would occur across 2-3 years afterwards, and the Iraqis insist that no permanent base–one that could be used to launch aggressive acts against Iraq’s neighbors–be installed.
Now, whether this initial framework is the one that gets finalized or not, different question….
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
Hmm, how does a country win a war against terrorists when terrorists weren’t running the country…hmmm…
Listen, this has always been a situation where the Iraqis will need to fight their own fight eventually. If you feel that staying in another year helped us “win” the war, then so be it, but this hasn’t been a “war” for a long time. In fact, one of the biggest failings of this administration was its inability to couch this post-war cleanup in terms that were much more realistic and accurate. I mean, did anybody honestly believe for a moment that al Qaeda would be running the Iraqi government?
In the end, we’ve been witness to a botched attempt at nation building, and one that has cost us much more than a trillion dollars. Iraq will do what Iraq wants to do now, and hopefully they’ll be a friend. Fingers crossed, but I’m not holding my breath.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Come on Jimmy – we’ve won?? So now we finally get what we’ve been after the whole time – - a declaration of victory!! We “win”!!! “They” lose!! Yeah! Aint it great to American where everything is “Winners” and “Lossers”! Every neo-con gets a ribbon! The world can’t possibly be any more complicated than that. It’s pathetic ego indulgence and it’s costs us trillions of dollars and thousands of precious lives. Makes me sick.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Organizations like AQI and the Taliban don’t need or want to run the government. They only care to control access to the population, which affords them the resources necessary to operate. Iran is a separate issue, as I’m sure they’d be happy to run Iraq, which is why they’ve invested so much money in destabilizing it.
The “war” is breaking the terrorist stranglehold on the population, interrupting their recruitment and closing revenue streams thereby marginalizing if not outright starving the organization to death.
Since these competing organizations have been marginalized, Iraq has become increasingly stable allowing for projects which further improve the ability for the government to protect and serve it’s population with less assistance. The US role is becoming increasingly one of a consultant, though I imagine in a few more years that role will also diminish.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Then to khaki and JG, if we can’t use terms like “winning” and “losing,” then how can we use words like “war” to describe what is going on? Can you use words like “mission” and “goal?” Do you see a difference in the situation between 2005-2006 and now? If so, what do you call it? This is all getting rather Orwellian.
It is what it is, we can try to talk about it in AP reports or blogs or comment-blurbs, but it is what it is despite whatever words you use to describe it. So…whatever.
If we pulled out unconditionally in 2006 or 2007, as so many people have suggested, do you honestly think there would be a functional and effective Iraqi government, the way we see one now?
Certainly huge swaths of territory were once under control by Al-qaeda as well as Shiite militias. Would they have become weaker or stronger if we pulled out then? So yes, I would say that Iraq would be fractured and completely disfunctional with Al-qaeda effectively governing territory and training and arming terrorists there, if we pulled out.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You folks on the left just CANT admit that there are actually winners and losers. Everyone has to be equal in your eyes.
Come on, you dorks!! Violence is subsiding, things are more stable, the Iraqis are rapidly learning that they DO have the power to control their own security and future. We are getting closer to being able to leave that country, and leave it in a better situation that we entered it. You should be happy that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
But, alas, if we would’ve pulled out a few years ago and left the country in shambles, you could’ve railed against President Bush for decades and been able to blame him for each and every bad thing that would’ve happend over there.
HOW DARE HE TAKE THAT AWAY FROM YOU!!!
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Rich, I don’t think ‘everybody wins’. And BTW, I think staying in Iraq was the only responsible thing we could do. As Colon Powell said, “you break it, you bought itâ€. Well Bush broke it and we bought it. But, Rich, when you start a war with the rationale that you are liberating the Iraqi people and eliminating the threat of WMD you can’t start spouting “WE’RE gonna WIN†talk. This was supposed to be about the Iraqi people winning. But when the lies were revealed (and they were very quickly) the people turned against us. One of a million things the Neocons got wrong. We created enemies with our ego driven “winners†and “losers†talk, Rich.
When asked what he’d do if America attacked Iran, Ahmad Batebi, a dissident who escaped to America from imprisonment, beatings, and his own impending execution by the Iranian government said he’d return to Iran and join the fight against us. Are you sensing there is some nuance to the way the world really works?
We just can’t see past our own SUVs, but we don’t have to as long as “winâ€. Right?