Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

mikhail · 07-10-08, 09:31 AM

Its not a strong demand for withdrawal its talking about a timetable depending on how things go(its also an election ploy yes believe it not Iraq is a democracy now).He wouldnt be asking for American air support in military operations if this werent so.The Iraqi is army is not yet fully trained but the oil contract for untapped oil are now going to exploited with help from foriegn oil companies.Once this money is used to rebuild infrastructure once in place regular life can fully resume.

Besides which troop levels have dropped since the peak of the surge.The provinces are progessivly being handed over to the Iraq army.Anbar former hell hole is due to be handed over this month.

Trinity · 07-10-08, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

Have we just witnessed the beginning of the battle to replace danarhea?

and since when does Trinity post outside of "what are you listening to right now?"

Like they say : Great minds think alike

But I have to admit I have a 12-14 hr advantage compared to any American due to time difference

Jokes aside, I do post outside of "what are you listening to right now?" thread

Here r some threads I started : http://www.debatepolitics.com/search...earchid=477478

For the rest I posted in, too bad u need to look thru the 768 posts I have

It is always good to have more ppl posting and starting new threads, esp after Dana left.

Trinity · 07-10-08, 10:46 AM

What is worrying is this isn't the 1st time Iraq asks for a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq.

I understand not letting go when they r not ready. But it is going to look highly doubtful when US still hangs on... and insists so.

If US steps up on plans on withdrawal and get ready to move off... at least that is plausible. But the impression when US troops refuse to leave isn't going to leave anyone with a good impression, the least of all the Iraqis.

What is making the US want to hold on to Iraq? Is there a motive?

oldreliable67 · 07-10-08, 11:00 AM

Mohammed Fadhil, an astute (IMO) Iraqi writing at Pajamas Media, had the following to say about this:

Quote:

Something must have made Maliki and his security advisor think that they have the upper hand in the negotiations. After all, they declared: “Our stance in the negotiations under way 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”

Here, we’re facing a typical case of the manifestations of the dual loyalties of many Iraqi politicians. The government as a whole has made achievements, especially in terms of security improvements. But these achievements have now been turned into a check that is being cashed to serve the sect and its allies.

For a long time, when the government was very weak, Maliki and Rubaie (especially Rubaie) were clearly against the idea of setting timetables, at least in public. What has changed now is that these politicians have gone to the Ayatollah and told him that their domestic foes have been more or less neutralized and that they are ready to use these gains for the benefit of the sect.

What I am saying here is that the statement “we are strong” does not reflect the Iraq-US balance of power in terms of two states negotiating a deal. It reflects the presumed balance of power between Shiite faith (in its regional context) on the one hand and the US, Sunni Arabs and Kurds on the other.

This calculation is obviously flawed. Maintaining the presence of American troops is crucial for the survival of Maliki and the future of Iraq — it is not as crucial for America. If America insists on a position of refusing to include a timetable for withdrawal in the agreement, it will be Maliki who will have to make concessions.

Thus far, I've not seen much attention paid to the Iraq Security Advisor's qualification of the withdrawal statement, to wit, as blogged by Austin Bay:

Quote:

The Iraqis are clearly gaining confidence — the Iraqi “demand” that the US withdraw troops is a statement of political confidence It is also a a well-hedged statement, since Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie that U.S. withdrawal was “conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security…”

[emphasis added]

All in all, the withdrawal timetable demand seems much more attuned to Iraqi politics and is well-conditioned in the event of a reversal of recent security gains.

Moreover, note that the withdrawl refers only to "withdrawal" not to presence. I've yet to see any statement of desire on the part of the Iraqis to withdraw US or MNF in their entirety. In fact, US troop strength is already being drawn down as the surge related build-up is slowly reversed.

AndrewC · 07-10-08, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldreliable67

Moreover, note that the withdrawl refers only to "withdrawal" not to presence. I've yet to see any statement of desire on the part of the Iraqis to withdraw US or MNF in their entirety. In fact, US troop strength is already being drawn down as the surge related build-up is slowly reversed.

The Associated Press: Iraq raises idea of timetable for US withdrawal

Quote:

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

"The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.

Trinity · 07-10-08, 11:34 AM

It is ez to test if the Iraqi troops r ready to hold off the insurgents by themselves. Let ONLY Iraqi troops fight from now on... and let the US troops watch for 6 mths by their side. If after 6 mths, all insurgencies r defeated by ONLY Iraqi forces, then they r ready to take care of themselves without US's help and US troops can leave as they r already redundent. Why isn't something like this in place?

If there is fear that the insurgents will lie in wait for the US troops to leave to attack in force.... then leave some US troops there to safeguard against that (but not ALL 150,000 troops).

mikhail · 07-10-08, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

It is ez to test if the Iraqi troops r ready to hold off the insurgents by themselves. Let ONLY Iraqi troops fight from now on... and let the US troops watch for 6 mths by their side. If after 6 mths, all insurgencies r defeated by ONLY Iraqi forces, then they r ready to take care of themselves without US's help and US troops can leave as they r already redundent. Why isn't something like this in place?

If there is fear that the insurgents will lie in wait for the US troops to leave to attack in force.... then leave some US troops there to safeguard against that (but not ALL 150,000 troops).

But they are they are handing the provinces over one by one like i said in my post the Iraqi army should have overall control by the end of the year according to the generals.

They still need air support though gotta stay in at least till the infrastructure is in such a state things want go bad again.

Trinity · 07-10-08, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikhail

But they are they are handing the provinces over one by one like i said in my post the Iraqi army should have overall control by the end of the year according to the generals.

They still need air support though gotta stay in at least till the infrastructure is in such a state things want go bad again.

6 mths is at least a reasonable time frame. US can help rebuild the infrastructure after most of the US troops have left.

mikhail · 07-10-08, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

6 mths is at least a reasonable time frame. US can help rebuild the infrastructure after most of the US troops have left.

Whats the point of risking it? All the blood and treasure the blunders made its worth ensuring as little can go wrong as possible if the by the end of year the Iraqi army should of recieved control of all provinces. If the US troops are just involved in training and pretty much staying in the bases it shouldnt concern Iraqi citizens too much.

Having troops their is also gives good leverage whilst dealing with Iran.

Trinity · 07-10-08, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikhail

Whats the point of risking it? All the blood and treasure the blunders made its worth ensuring as little can go wrong as possible if the by the end of year the Iraqi army should of recieved control of all provinces. If the US troops are just involved in training and pretty much staying in the bases it shouldnt concern Iraqi citizens too much.

Having troops their is also gives good leverage whilst dealing with Iran.

Ah so u think the US troops r there in case there is a war with Iran and US needs to attack Iran with their US base in Iraq?

07-10-08, 09:31 AM	#41
mikhail blond bombshell Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Seen: 03-06-10 10:41 PM Location: uk Posts: 4,324 Thanks: 428 Thanked 667 Times in 490 Posts Lean: Independent Gender:	Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable Its not a strong demand for withdrawal its talking about a timetable depending on how things go(its also an election ploy yes believe it not Iraq is a democracy now).He wouldnt be asking for American air support in military operations if this werent so.The Iraqi is army is not yet fully trained but the oil contract for untapped oil are now going to exploited with help from foriegn oil companies.Once this money is used to rebuild infrastructure once in place regular life can fully resume. Besides which troop levels have dropped since the peak of the surge.The provinces are progessivly being handed over to the Iraq army.Anbar former hell hole is due to be handed over this month.
	__________________ The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

07-10-08, 10:46 AM	#43
Trinity Professor Join Date: Apr 2008 Last Seen: 09-10-09 04:35 PM Posts: 1,579 Thanks: 82 Thanked 166 Times in 132 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable What is worrying is this isn't the 1st time Iraq asks for a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq. I understand not letting go when they r not ready. But it is going to look highly doubtful when US still hangs on... and insists so. If US steps up on plans on withdrawal and get ready to move off... at least that is plausible. But the impression when US troops refuse to leave isn't going to leave anyone with a good impression, the least of all the Iraqis. What is making the US want to hold on to Iraq? Is there a motive?
	__________________ I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian

07-10-08, 11:34 AM	#46
Trinity Professor Join Date: Apr 2008 Last Seen: 09-10-09 04:35 PM Posts: 1,579 Thanks: 82 Thanked 166 Times in 132 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable It is ez to test if the Iraqi troops r ready to hold off the insurgents by themselves. Let ONLY Iraqi troops fight from now on... and let the US troops watch for 6 mths by their side. If after 6 mths, all insurgencies r defeated by ONLY Iraqi forces, then they r ready to take care of themselves without US's help and US troops can leave as they r already redundent. Why isn't something like this in place? If there is fear that the insurgents will lie in wait for the US troops to leave to attack in force.... then leave some US troops there to safeguard against that (but not ALL 150,000 troops).
	__________________ I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode