An Inconvenient Request

dr_mabeuse

seduce the mind
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Posts
11,528
Iraq demands "very clear" U.S. troop timeline


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States must provide a "very clear timeline" to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.

It was the strongest public assertion yet that Iraq is demanding a timeline. U.S. President George W. Bush has long resisted setting a firm schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq, although last month the White House began speaking of a general "time horizon" and "aspirational goals" to withdraw.

Iraq's leaders have become more confident of their ability to provide security on their own as the country has become safer. But bombings, which killed at least nine people on Sunday, were a reminder that it is still a violent place.

In an interview with Reuters, Zebari said the agreement, including the timeline, was "very close" and would probably be presented to the Iraqi parliament in early September.

Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: "No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline."

"The talks are still ongoing. There's been a great deal of progress. The deal is very close. It is about to be closed," Zebari said of the agreement, which will replace a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S. presence, which expires at the end of this year.

A sticking point in the negotiations is Washington's wish that its troops be immune from Iraqi law. In July, Iraq's deputy speaker of parliament told Reuters lawmakers would likely veto any a deal if this condition were granted.

Other hurdles include the power of the U.S. military to detain Iraqi citizens, and their authority to conduct military operations, Zebari said.

"Our negotiators have really found compromises on all these issues."

ASSERTIVE STANCE

He would not be drawn on the precise dates that Iraqi negotiators are seeking for withdrawal, saying the document was not yet final. Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all combat troops out by October 2010.

An agreement that included that date would require the Bush administration effectively to accept a timeline almost identical to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 invasion. [my bolds--Zoot]

"You may hear many dates, but I caution you not to take any of these dates until you get the final document," Zebari said.

Iraq has taken an increasingly assertive stance in negotiations with the United States after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's forces scored military victories against militia groups this year, giving the government a confidence boost.

The high price of oil means the Iraqi treasury has more money for reconstruction projects than it can figure out how to spend, and violence is at a four-year low.

Still, U.S. commanders say they worry that a hasty withdrawal could allow violence to resume.

A suicide bomber blew up a bomb-laden minibus in the town of Khanaqin north of Baghdad, killing three people and wounding at least 20 on Sunday. Five roadside bomb attacks in Baghdad on Sunday killed a total of six people and wounded at least 26.

Iraqi politics have been paralysed by a dispute over the northern city of Kirkuk, which Kurds claim as the capital of their autonomous homeland. The issues threatens to stoke ethnic tensions between the city's Kurds, Arabs and ethnic Turkmen.

That quarrel scuppered a law needed to allow provincial elections across the country, despite intensive lobbying by the United States and United Nations to reach a deal.
========================

Anyone want to wager on how long the new, democratic Iraq will last once the US leaves? I say less than 2 years.
 
Last edited:
Iraq demands "very clear" U.S. troop timeline


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States must provide a "very clear timeline" to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.

It was the strongest public assertion yet that Iraq is demanding a timeline. U.S. President George W. Bush has long resisted setting a firm schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq, although last month the White House began speaking of a general "time horizon" and "aspirational goals" to withdraw.

Iraq's leaders have become more confident of their ability to provide security on their own as the country has become safer. But bombings, which killed at least nine people on Sunday, were a reminder that it is still a violent place.

In an interview with Reuters, Zebari said the agreement, including the timeline, was "very close" and would probably be presented to the Iraqi parliament in early September.

Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: "No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline."

"The talks are still ongoing. There's been a great deal of progress. The deal is very close. It is about to be closed," Zebari said of the agreement, which will replace a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S. presence, which expires at the end of this year.

A sticking point in the negotiations is Washington's wish that its troops be immune from Iraqi law. In July, Iraq's deputy speaker of parliament told Reuters lawmakers would likely veto any a deal if this condition were granted.

Other hurdles include the power of the U.S. military to detain Iraqi citizens, and their authority to conduct military operations, Zebari said.

"Our negotiators have really found compromises on all these issues."

ASSERTIVE STANCE

He would not be drawn on the precise dates that Iraqi negotiators are seeking for withdrawal, saying the document was not yet final. Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all combat troops out by October 2010.

An agreement that included that date would require the Bush administration effectively to accept a timeline almost identical to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 invasion. [my bolds--Zoot]

"You may hear many dates, but I caution you not to take any of these dates until you get the final document," Zebari said.

Iraq has taken an increasingly assertive stance in negotiations with the United States after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's forces scored military victories against militia groups this year, giving the government a confidence boost.

The high price of oil means the Iraqi treasury has more money for reconstruction projects than it can figure out how to spend, and violence is at a four-year low.

Still, U.S. commanders say they worry that a hasty withdrawal could allow violence to resume.

A suicide bomber blew up a bomb-laden minibus in the town of Khanaqin north of Baghdad, killing three people and wounding at least 20 on Sunday. Five roadside bomb attacks in Baghdad on Sunday killed a total of six people and wounded at least 26.

Iraqi politics have been paralysed by a dispute over the northern city of Kirkuk, which Kurds claim as the capital of their autonomous homeland. The issues threatens to stoke ethnic tensions between the city's Kurds, Arabs and ethnic Turkmen.

That quarrel scuppered a law needed to allow provincial elections across the country, despite intensive lobbying by the United States and United Nations to reach a deal.
========================

Anyone want to wager on how long the new, democratic Iraq will last once the US leaves? I say less than 2 years.


At the risk of raising the hackles of the offendable, Arabs and democracy have a very poor record of coexistance.
 
Perfect. As we all know, once a date for withdrawal is set the insurgents lay low until the US troops are mostly gone. Then they'll reappear and it will be business as usual and good luck to the Iraqi troops.
 
Dreams of Polina

Perfect. As we all know, once a date for withdrawal is set the insurgents lay low until the US troops are mostly gone. Then they'll reappear and it will be business as usual and good luck to the Iraqi troops.

Are we talking about the surge here?


-KC
 
My first thought was, "Fine. Let the Iraqis clean up their own mess."

But then I think it may be beyond their ability to solve. I think it's beyond ours as well.

To quote Oliver Hardy, "This is another fine mess you've gotten us into."
 
Are we talking about the surge here?


-KC

Only if you mean the insurgents. My guess is that they would calm down until US Troops only had a 'presence' then hit hard. Hopefully, the Iraq troops would be up to the task by then.
 
Perfect. As we all know, once a date for withdrawal is set the insurgents lay low until the US troops are mostly gone. Then they'll reappear and it will be business as usual and good luck to the Iraqi troops.

1) Republicans insisted that Clinton set a timeline for withdrawal from Bosnia. Mission accomplished, etc.

2) If Iraqi freedom doesn't include the freedom to be wrong on this issue, it's no freedom at all. It's a military occupation, period.
 
1) Republicans insisted that Clinton set a timeline for withdrawal from Bosnia. Mission accomplished, etc.

2) If Iraqi freedom doesn't include the freedom to be wrong on this issue, it's no freedom at all. It's a military occupation, period.

I almost edited my comment because I thought it might sound like I was against withdrawal. But I'm lazy. As it is, we're in agreement.
 
Dreams of Polina

Only if you mean the insurgents. My guess is that they would calm down until US Troops only had a 'presence' then hit hard. Hopefully, the Iraq troops would be up to the task by then.

Think about it. We keep hearing the surge "worked".... You just offered the very common sense arguement that if we were to pack up and go home...."they" (let's include the Sunni Warlords, Al Qaeda, Shii Militias.. I probably missed a few "insurgents") would just lay low and wait for us to go....

My question is why oh why would they not just do the same thing with the "surge"? How would you know it worked until the "surge" is ... mmmm "dis-surged?

Or do you suggest that the "surge" is just another permanent increase? We will soon find out.....

I suppose.

-KC
 
Interesting timing

blog on naval armada heading toward the gulf. Also claims "Israeli military officers are advising the Georgian armed forces."

other places on the internet suggest Iran is gearing up with their new anti naval missiles, but that is just rumor too.
 
Think about it. We keep hearing the surge "worked".... You just offered the very common sense arguement that if we were to pack up and go home...."they" (let's include the Sunni Warlords, Al Qaeda, Shii Militias.. I probably missed a few "insurgents") would just lay low and wait for us to go....

My question is why oh why would they not just do the same thing with the "surge"? How would you know it worked until the "surge" is ... mmmm "dis-surged?

Or do you suggest that the "surge" is just another permanent increase? We will soon find out.....

I suppose.

-KC

Fair question. How was "the surge worked" defined again? Less violence in US targeted areas? ;)

With troop reduction to pre-surge levels there apparently hasn't been significant spikes in violence, so hopefully the newish counterinsurgency strategy and other factors are truly keeping things calmer.
 
Dreams of Polina

Fair question. How was "the surge worked" defined again? Less violence in US targeted areas? ;)

With troop reduction to pre-surge levels there apparently hasn't been significant spikes in violence, so hopefully the newish counterinsurgency strategy and other factors are truly keeping things calmer.

Actually, the surge was another 30,000 troops.... who are still there...

But I do hope things are "calmer", at least for us.... folks keep dying tho....

-KC
 
Actually, the surge was another 30,000 troops.... who are still there...

But I do hope things are "calmer", at least for us.... folks keep dying tho....

-KC

From what I've read the surge troops have basically left. But it will be good to get the rest out of there.
 
Fair question. How was "the surge worked" defined again? Less violence in US targeted areas? ;)

With troop reduction to pre-surge levels there apparently hasn't been significant spikes in violence, so hopefully the newish counterinsurgency strategy and other factors are truly keeping things calmer.

Well has the surge worked? Or have the insurgents just decided that the fastest way to take over is to throttle back on the violence till we leave and make their move then?

Maliki wants the US out by 2010. If we're not, then like Sher says, we can't pretend this is a liberation anymore. It's an occupation, plain and simple.

Hint: Watch for Maliki to be replaced in the next few months by someone who wants the Americans to stay. That's what we did in Viet Nam.
 
. . .

Hint: Watch for Maliki to be replaced in the next few months by someone who wants the Americans to stay. That's what we did in Viet Nam.

Jesus.

I really have no faith in our government at all.

:(
 
I'll preface this by saying I am not truly this paranoid.

But Obama was seeing poll results that indicated a blowout, according to some sources... and then?

Gas prices hit a freefall and now we are hearing talk about a timetable for withdrawal somehow being implemented before the election...

and two of Obama's early impact issues were energy and the war.

One of those guys that draws up Lincoln-Kennedy similarity lists would have a field day with this stuff...
 
Honestly I think Iraq will make it, assuming the US actually does leave. I'm kinda seeing the replacing maliki thing happening myself, before bush leaves so suddenly they want us to stay there and help them. :rolleyes:

If the US however leaves and doesn't make maliki disapear, I think they will sruvive just fine, alot of the insurgents are insurgents because they were invaded. They didn't ask the US to come help them get rid of hussein, they weren't doing anything wrong, and suddenly the marines are storming the beaches. If any country does the same thing to the US without the entire country saying yes come get rid of this moron leading us there would be insurgents the likes of which god has never seen.

Well OK so I am exaggerating, but still, half of the south fought against the north because they blew up their front door. It wasn't because they believed in slavery, they were just protecting their land. Invaders leave, they protected their land and are going back to their lives. If they actually can or not being a different subject of course.
 
Back
Top