Al-Maliki Sets Timeline for Withdrawal: Bush Doesn't Agree

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq and the United States have agreed that a planned security pact will require all U.S. troops to leave by the end of 2011, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday, while Washington said no final deal had been reached.
ADVERTISEMENT

"There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said in a speech to tribal leaders in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

"Yes, there is major progress on the issue of the negotiations on the security deal," Maliki said.

The Iraqi government had proposed in bilateral talks that U.S. troops end patrols of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year, and that U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by 2011, under a pact that will govern their presence after 2008.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said there had been a draft agreement but that it needed to "go through a number of levers in the Iraqi political system before we actually have an agreement from the Iraqi side."

"Until we have a deal, we don't have a deal," he said.

He declined to comment on the 2011 withdrawal date.

The administration of President George W. Bush has sought to avoid fixed timetables, but Maliki's Shi'ite-led government has been increasingly assertive in seeking assurances surrounding the exit of the approximately 144,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a visit to Baghdad last week that a deal was close, but not yet final.

The pact is needed to replace a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 which has formed the legal basis for the American troop presence ever since, but expires at the end of this year.

Iraqi officials say a draft agreement was completed last week and must now be circulated to political leaders for approval before it can be submitted to parliament next month.

SOVEREIGNTY

Maliki said no agreement would be signed that did not respect Iraqi sovereignty, and said any deal would need to include a "specific date, not an open one" for withdrawal.

"An open time limit is not acceptable in any security deal that governs the presence of the international forces," he said.

Maliki also said no foreigners would be given full legal immunity. Washington is seeking to avoid allowing its soldiers to be tried in Iraqi courts.

In many countries where the United States has bases, treaties allow the forces to be governed by U.S. military law rather than placed under local jurisdiction.

"We will not accept to put the lives of our sons on the line by guaranteeing absolute immunity for anybody, whether Iraqis or foreigners," Maliki said. "The sanctity of Iraqi blood should be respected."

Maliki also said an agreement had been reached that would prohibit U.S. military operations "without the approval of the Iraqi government and American forces."

But he said negotiations on the security pact continued on other sensitive issues. "Unless these can be revised, it will be difficult for this treaty to be signed," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc_2

Whatever happened to "we'll stand down when they stand up"?

Another empty gesture, another lie, another pile of bullshit.

And you people want to elect another Republican who votes in 95% lockstep with Bush.

What will it take for you to learn?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What will it take for you to learn?[/quote]

When trailer parks become repossessed by the bank.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Whatever happened to "we'll stand down when they stand up"?
[/QUOTE]

To play devil's advocate, they need to show that they can stand up, not just give an arbitrary date.

2011 sounds reasonable, but the key is how stable the government is, the size of the military force, the size of the police force (and the quality of training of both) etc.

We have to be sure they have the resources to stop the country from falling into all out civil war when foreign forces withdraw.

I'm very much of the "the sooner we're out the better" mindset as we should have never been there to begin with. But we can't bail out to early and leave the Iraqi people worse off than they were before. We owe them to stay until the new Iraqi government can maintain order itself. Hopefully that's by 2011 or sooner, but we can't just set a date and pull out regardless of their capabilities.

As for voting choices, even Obama has backed off of his immediate withdrawal at a certain date stance he was touting in the primaries. And is talking about a smart and structured withdrawal. Now, I think he'll do right much more than McCain, and McCain will keep us there long past the time the Iraqi's are capable of maintaining order themselves. My point is that I doubt even Obama would accept an arbitrary date for full withdrawal. It must be accompanied by measures of capability--size of militrary/police forces etc.
 
The article says that both the State Department and Iraqi officials are referring to a "draft agreement", and both sides are kicking it up the ladder.

So where is the empty gesture, the lie?
 
It would be the part where Al-Maliki says the deal is done, and the US says no way.

Of course the US wouldn't agree to any deal that would jeopardize the US military's ability to get away with anything they want. The very same reason US military members are exempt from trial and prosecution at the ICC in The Hague.

That said, the lie comes when you have a governmental leader, Al-Maliki, saying "okay, guys, time to go" - and the US, the same people who have been hemming and hawing, waiting for the motion to leave - saying "oh, not quite yet."

The lie, like WMDs, like the hypocrisy of leaders condemning Russia's actions in Georgia, like in the preparation for invading Iran - comes from saying one thing and doing another. "We'll stand down when they stand up." Al-Maliki's called them on the bluff. The US says the deal isn't done because.

- wait for it -

They don't respect the sovereignty of Iraq. Like they didn't respect it in March 2003.

If you can't see the lie, I'll pony up for a co-pay for you to see an optician.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To play devil's advocate, they need to show that they can stand up, not just give an arbitrary date.

2011 sounds reasonable, but the key is how stable the government is, the size of the military force, the size of the police force (and the quality of training of both) etc.

We have to be sure they have the resources to stop the country from falling into all out civil war when foreign forces withdraw.

I'm very much of the "the sooner we're out the better" mindset as we should have never been there to begin with. But we can't bail out to early and leave the Iraqi people worse off than they were before. We owe them to stay until the new Iraqi government can maintain order itself. Hopefully that's by 2011 or sooner, but we can't just set a date and pull out regardless of their capabilities.[/quote]

Obviously the US doesn't want to pull troops out until it's sure that the country is stable without them, but if the Iraqi government doesn't agree, what do you do? If, after negotiations, the Iraqi government still wants the troops out of their country at that specific date, what other options are there?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Obviously the US doesn't want to pull troops out until it's sure that the country is stable without them, but if the Iraqi government doesn't agree, what do you do? If, after negotiations, the Iraqi government still wants the troops out of their country at that specific date, what other options are there?[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure that al-maliki is firm in his belief that the American soldiers stationed in Iraq are a big part of what is causing the instability.

Meaning that stability isn't even on the table until after we leave, it is the Iraqis call.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am pretty sure that al-maliki is firm in his belief that the American soldiers stationed in Iraq are a big part of what is causing the instability.

Meaning that stability isn't even on the table until after we leave, it is the Iraqis call.[/QUOTE]


If you compare Muslim countries that have an American presense with those that do not, the levels of violence are drastically different. Countries with no American have close to no attacks against civilianz (suicide or otherwise) in some cases they have none.

The only difference with Iraq is they have a new government that could be suseptable to a coup or other type of inner strife once the American presnece has left (compared with a stable country in the middle east), but only time will tell how that pans out. We can't babysit forever.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']If you compare Muslim countries that have an American presence with those that do not, the levels of violence are drastically different. Countries with no Americans have close to no attacks against civilians (suicide or otherwise) in some cases they have none.

The only difference with Iraq is they have a new government that could be susceptible to a coup or other type of inner strife once the American presence has left (compared with a stable country in the middle east), but only time will tell how that pans out. We can't babysit forever.[/QUOTE]

Even edited for clarity your post makes no sense.

We never should have been "babysitting" at all, let along now when it has been official for a while they want us to gtfo.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Source?[/QUOTE]


http://www.tamilnation.org/forum/sachisrikantha/pape.pdf

He also has an updated paper on the same topic with more recent numbers, but I haven't been able to find it yet.

edit: evidently his updated work i can only find in his book (which isnt easily found for free on the internet)...

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380

[quote name='Msut77']Even edited for clarity your post makes no sense.

[/QUOTE]

oh come off it. im not going to proof read, spell check, or edit grammar while posting at an internet forum at work. give me a break.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']oh come off it. im not going to proof read, spell check, or edit grammar while posting at an internet forum at work. give me a break.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you could be bothered to you know add an actual coherent thought to your response?

And I am being generous in calling it a response.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Perhaps you could be bothered to you know add an actual coherent thought to your response?

And I am being generous in calling it a response.[/QUOTE]

jesus christ are a moron? i was agreeing with you. maybe instead of correcting my spelling you should read my post.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']jesus christ are a moron? i was agreeing with you. maybe instead of correcting my spelling you should read my post.[/QUOTE]

I was aware that in your own roundabout way you were agreeing with me, I was wondering wtf the point was other than to spout off on terrorism in other countries (I think that is what you were talking about) or add in the ridiculous "babysitting" thing.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Obviously the US doesn't want to pull troops out until it's sure that the country is stable without them, but if the Iraqi government doesn't agree, what do you do? If, after negotiations, the Iraqi government still wants the troops out of their country at that specific date, what other options are there?[/QUOTE]

It is a tricky situation. As I said, I was playing devil's advocate. If they want us out we should leave. If it devolves into all out civil war they shouldn't expect us to come back to end it though.

I think we have an obligation to stay and help them build up their infrastructure, but only as long as their government wants our help.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I was aware that in your own roundabout way you were agreeing with me, I was wondering wtf the point was other than to spout off on terrorism in other countries (I think that is what you were talking about) or add in the ridiculous "babysitting" thing.[/QUOTE]

just like we cant babysit iraq, i cant babysit you. youll just have to read and & comprehend on your own.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']http://www.tamilnation.org/forum/sachisrikantha/pape.pdf[/quote]

Tamil Tigers are Muslim?

And this paper, while informative, analyzes (1) only suicide attacks (which omits other, more likely forms of violence, IEDs being just one example of dozens, (2) analyzes attacks up until 2001, and relatedly, was (3) published in 2003. The last two points are crucial simply because US' occupied presence in the middle east changed DRASTICALLY in the time frame following both the analysis (Afghanistan) and publication (Iraq) and may yet still (Iran).

So you're not comparing like constructs at all, though you're going further than the average Drudge Report or Crooks and Liars (;)) link, so I'll give you credit for that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tamil Tigers are Muslim?

And this paper, while informative, analyzes (1) only suicide attacks (which omits other, more likely forms of violence, IEDs being just one example of dozens, (2) analyzes attacks up until 2001, and relatedly, was (3) published in 2003. The last two points are crucial simply because US' occupied presence in the middle east changed DRASTICALLY in the time frame following both the analysis (Afghanistan) and publication (Iraq) and may yet still (Iran).

So you're not comparing like constructs at all, though you're going further than the average Drudge Report or Crooks and Liars (;)) link, so I'll give you credit for that.[/QUOTE]

my edited post has a link to his book, which goes past 2003. and yes, its about suicide attacks, i did my own generalizing about other attacks.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']just like we cant babysit iraq, i cant babysit you. youll just have to read and & comprehend on your own.[/QUOTE]

In Iraq it is more like a kidnapping than a babysitting job.
 
Does it really matter what Bush says about future foreign policy anymore?

At least he's consistent about it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc_2

Whatever happened to "we'll stand down when they stand up"?

Another empty gesture, another lie, another pile of bullshit.

And you people want to elect another Republican who votes in 95% lockstep with Bush.

What will it take for you to learn?[/quote]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted:

ELECT MCCAIN!!!! MORE BLOOD IS DEMANDED!!!!

THE DEMON IS NOT SATISFIED YET!!!!

All you kiddies out there, repeat: "war is good, death is good, blood is good."

And practice your push-ups while watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbs_0WM2P8
 
bread's done
Back
Top