Iraq sets Time for U.S. Pullout

Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet’s decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.
The proposed pact must still be approved by Iraq’s Parliament, in a vote scheduled to take place in a week. But leaders of some of the largest parliamentary blocs expressed confidence that with the backing of most Shiites and Kurds they had enough support to ensure its approval.

Widespread Sunni opposition could doom the proposed pact even if it has the votes to pass, as it would call into question whether there was a true national consensus, which Shiite leaders consider essential.

The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables.

“This vote shows that the Iraqis have figured out how to stand up for themselves, to Iran and to the U.S.,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a specialist on Iraq at the Brookings Institution. “They will have stared in the face at the various options and concluded that none are ideal, but the best for their security is an amount of ongoing but finite American cooperation, while also indicating their strong desire to run their own country on their own as soon as possible.”

Good article - very informative. It also gives a much more realistic timetable for withdrawal than radar's rantings.

The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities. The agreement is not in doubt. The major question (not discussed in that quote) are whether Americans can have (suggested up to 70) military bases in Iraq.

All but the Kurds want Americans out completely. They still have a civil war to finish. Remember that war that Americans foolishly believed was Al Qaeda? Well that civil war has not yet resulted in any diplomatic solution. Only the Kurds think they will be losers in a three way civil war.

Notice the quote in that article - O'Hanlon - who was driven from government because he told the truth about Iraq in 2002.

tw;505212 wrote:

The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities.

Cite please. If you mean the Mahdi Army, then I believe you are mistaken. Moqtada al-Sadr has said repeatedly throughout the talks that he will not, specifically not, do so. That was apparently one of the lynch pins in getting the deal done.

As far back as August '08

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr would dissolve his Mahdi army militia if the United States started withdrawing troops according to a set timetable, a spokesman said. Sadr's decision to link disarming his militia to a US withdrawal comes at a crucial point in talks between Baghdad and Washington over a security pact to provide a legal basis for US troops in Iraq when a UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

I'm not sure that I believe him, but still, it was said.

Pull out like it's prom night!

classicman;505243 wrote:

Cite please. If you mean the Mahdi Army, then I believe you are mistaken. Moqtada al-Sadr has said repeatedly throughout the talks that he will not, specifically not, do so.

All that was that changed during Friday prayers. However, Sadr is not the ultimate leader. Everyone has turned to hear what Sistani says. And Sistani has been silent.

It not about US withdrawing troops. Sadr said he will promote attacks on Americans if Americans are granted bases in Iraq.

Originally Posted by tw
The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities.

tw;505325 wrote:

All that was that changed during Friday prayers. However, Sadr is not the ultimate leader. Sadr said he will promote attacks on Americans if Americans are granted bases in Iraq.

I still didn't see a cite for this claim - I've looked repeatedly and still cannot find anything to corroborate your claims.

Meanwhile... another good article about the troop withdrawal. Interesting tie in at the end regarding the hijackings too.

We always said we would be there temporarily. I've always figured there would be arguments about the timing of our eventual departure -- someone will say things aren't done, another will say things are overdone, and the guy who says we shoudn'ta done will have to shut up, having nothing constructive to say.

The shouldn'ta-done sorts always impressed me as fascist sympathizers anyway. One reason I don't vote Democratic -- and obviously enough, one reason why Radar does. He believes we should leave tyrants alone; I believe this is the road to evil.

classicman;505401 wrote:

I still didn't see a cite for this claim - I've looked repeatedly ...

From the NY Times of 16 November 2008 entitled "Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout":

It remains unclear how hardened opponents of the agreement might respond, particularly followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. After the cabinet vote, Sadrist politicians, reiterating their opposition to the accord, claimed that as a procedural matter, parliamentary approval would require a two-thirds majority. Supporters say a simple majority will suffice.

In a statement released Sunday night, Mr. Sadr sought once again to position himself as a nationalist opponent of the American-led forces. “I call on the Iraqi Parliament again to refuse this pact without hesitation because it is a deal to sell Iraq and its people,” said Mr. Sadr, who in a statement at Friday Prayer last week also called for armed resistance against the Americans.

... Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, appears to be divided. A little more than a fourth of its members have said they will vote for the agreement, while leaders of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Tawafiq’s largest member party, said they would not approve any agreement without a national referendum, an unlikely development.

Also reported by other news services. Also listed are Sistani's three conditions for a settlement.

I already read that. However, that quote never mentions violence in any way - contrary to your previous statement.

tw wrote:

The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities.

tw wrote:

After the cabinet vote, Sadrist politicians, reiterating their opposition to the accord, claimed that as a procedural matter, parliamentary approval would require a two-thirds majority.

classicman;505703 wrote:

I already read that. However, that quote never mentions violence in any way -

So "armed resistance" means they will be having a "love in". You hippies need to learn how to read.

my bad, missed it both times.

classicman;505779 wrote:

my bad, missed it both times.

You hippies must learn. With all that pot, the short term memory is the first to go (from my early days working for the weather underground).

So true - I haven't done it in decades and it affects me still. What?

It should be interesting. So many people voted for Obama on his promise to pull us out of Iraq. Now let's what he could do.

1) Order an immediate pullout the day after he takes office.

2) Order a more rapidly phased pullout in the next 6 months.

3) Follow the agreement between the Iraqi gov and the US gov recently approved. No pull out for a year or more.

Obama's quotes:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm

This gives him perfect cover to do exactly what Bush & Friends would do, follow the signed agreement. He'll phrase it much better, of course.

"The Sovereign Nation of Iraq has asked us to protect their fragile democracy from violent foreign agitators until 2011. We have an obligation to honor their request, and then to peacefully withdraw from their soil."

The real question is ... what will he do if Iraq turns into an utter shitstorm the day the last boots are up.

Well if he does what the liberal base demanded and voted him into office to do, it really doesn't matter what happens the day after we leave.

No, what the base wanted is an end to the war in Iraq. They won't be disappointed in the end coming about in a way that's the safest exit for their sons & daughters stationed there.

And if there is a resulting genocide then what? not saying it will happen but what if.

Then it's Bush's fault.

TheMercenary;506930 wrote:

And if there is a resulting genocide then what?

Then we have another example from history on why a country does not go to war without a smoking gun, a strategic objective, and an exit strategy. Basic military concepts ignored with contempt by Johnson in the 1960s and by George Jr in the 2000s. But then both believed in the "might makes right" bull.

Whether a massacre occurs or not cannot be averted by American military. America that had responsible diplomacy may avoid that catastrophe. But the current administration that even subverted the Oslo Accords, destroyed a solution in Korea, undermined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, subverted the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and destroyed the reform movement in Iran is also incapable of doing the Dayton Accords or negotiating a World Trade agreement (only GATT round to fail was under George Jr's watch).

Can American diplomacy avert what otherwise appears to be an inevitable civil war in Iraq? It requires diplomats empowered by an intelligent leader.

Obama makes his first promise for his new administration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27854138

I have heard that plans for part of that pledge are already in place and set to move forward as soon as Jan. 21. This is a very hopeful sign IMO.

Rethinking a campaign pledge before even taking office.

In light of the downturn, Obama is also said to be reconsidering a key campaign pledge: his proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. According to several people familiar with the discussions, he might instead let those tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011, effectively delaying any tax increase while he gives his stimulus plan a chance to work.

That approach, Daley said on NBC's "Meet the Press," "looks more likely than not."

Link

Rut ro... don't tell pinko!

Well I wonder if it is simply a politician reneging on a promise or a thoughtful leader recognizing the nuances of a situation and modifying his decision. I fear the first and hope for the latter.

Agreed.

With all this money the Dems are promising we are going to have to gin up the presses and make some more. Didn't they try that in Rhodesia?

Let's see. Yep: tw's true to form. Everything he wants in post #21 weakens us vis-a-vis the totalitarians out there. The boy just luuuuuvs him some American weakness, in aid of his... manifest desires.

Which are better understood than is good for him and his.

Merc, more conspicuously in Zimbabwe, which presently does not possess a money economy readily recognizable as such.

Urbane Guerrilla;507862 wrote:

Merc, more conspicuously in Zimbabwe, which presently does not possess a money economy readily recognizable as such.

Yea, I just use the title of Rhodesia to piss off the marxists. :rolleyes:

Anyway how about that now, where did I hear someone say this?:

$700 Billion Printing of Bailout Monopoly Money, Hedge Your Wealth!
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6635.html

That new bailout, announced Tuesday, will be financed by a different pile of funding - most likely from the printing of more money.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/25/news/economy/where_bailout_stands/index.htm

You're kidding, right?

That new bailout, announced Tuesday, will be financed by a different pile of funding - most likely from the printing of more money. The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department said they will allocate $800 billion more to go to holders of loans backed by consumer debt in an attempt to jumpstart lending by the nation's banks for mortgages, credit card purchases and cars.

Nope, he ain't kidding.
:eek:

Not just Zimbabwe, I'm thinking more like the hyperinflation in Germany in 1920-1923, which was caused by the same overprinting of cash. We all know where THAT ended up. Little man, what now?

I'm off to buy some tinned food.

So radar you got anything to say about your prediction regarding the troop withdrawal timetable?

Zimbabwean hyperinflation outpaces the Weimar Republic's. Economists are throwing up their hands and using words like "surreal." There comes a point where it hardly matters any more.

Yes but if we are looking at an analogy for the contemporary US, Weimar Germany is a much closer match, being a developed, industrialised economy that should have been able to keep a sound base. Zimbabwe was largely an agricultural economy.
Led me add, though, that the US economy could survive printing an extra trillion dollars or so, with a bit of a devaluation hit. There is still a lot of strength in the US, despite the present problems.

Over printing money to bail out corporations or defaulting mortgagees devalues all the money currently being held. This is effectively a tax on anyone prudent enough to have saved, and a let off for anyone who has a dollar-denominated debt. Again, we're looking at rewarding those who helped create the problem. :headshake

I guess I need to go out and get some second mortgages. :D

Iraq's al-Maliki: US will stay in insecure areas

BAGHDAD – U.S. troops will not be removed from areas of Iraq that are not completely secure or where there is a high probability that attacks could resume after the Americans leave, Iraq's prime minister said Sunday.

[COLOR="Red"](a)[/COLOR]Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview with The Associated Press that he had told President Barack Obama and other top U.S. officials that any withdrawals "must be done with our approval" and in coordination with the Iraqi government.

"I do not want any withdrawals except in areas considered 100 percent secure and under control," al-Maliki said during his flight from Australia to Baghdad at the end of a five-day visit.

"Any area where there is a likelihood of a resumption of attacks, withdrawals from there will be postponed," he said.

The U.S.-Iraq security pact that went into effect Jan. 1 calls for U.S. combat forces to leave the cities by the end of June in the first step of a plan to remove all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

[COLOR="Red"](b)[/COLOR]In Washington, a senior administration official said Obama "has talked with and consulted with the Iraqis" and has said that "obviously we want to sustain the security gains of the last year."

He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was referring to private conversations.

Al-Maliki did not specify areas where the removal of U.S. troops might be delayed. But those areas would likely include Mosul, the country's third largest city, and Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

Al-Qaida and other Sunni extremist groups operate in both areas, despite repeated offensives by U.S. and Iraqi forces. An Iraqi soldier was killed Sunday in a bombing in Mosul and a police lieutenant colonel was shot dead in another part of the city, police said.

"I want to leave it very clear that there's no cessation of combat operations" after June 30, Rudesheim told reporters in Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone.

"We understand that we're going to have the vast majority of our formations moving out of the city proper and moving to the rural belts," he said.

"We will not forsake the security that has been established by the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces," he said.

Rudesheim said U.S. military transition teams that train Iraqi forces will remain at posts within the city.

(a) I'm just curious here, When did this guy start dictating US policy?

(b) Wow, admitting that we made gains last year. I found that interesting.

This article has a lot more info in it that I haven't seen available elsewhere.

classicman;545549 wrote:

[B][U]

(a) I'm just curious here, When did this guy start dictating US policy?

We've been bitching for the Iraq's government to get off their duff and start running the country, so now they are. They came up with a timetable for US rules of engagement and withdrawal last year, remember?

(b) Wow, admitting that we made gains last year. I found that interesting.

Contrary to your belief, Obama is not an idiot. He, and most of the politicians, know what's going on over there, regardless of their public(political) posturing.

Oh, and Iraq could still go to hell in a handbasket.

classicman;545549 wrote:

[B][U]
(a) I'm just curious here, When did this guy start dictating US policy?

You mean when did the Prime Minister of Iraq start dictating US policy that directly effects Iraq's stability?

Though of course we don't have to listen to him....they are our troops. But it would be kind of funny (maybe not) if we initially started a war with Iraq to take down a dictator and install a democracy and then pull out right before the democracy could stabilize leaving us with a dictator or chaos.