When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
We have won the war in Iraq. By “we” I mean the Coalition and the Iraqis. Unless there is some unexpected reversal, what lays ahead is the challenge of building a better Iraq
To further clarify: “We” does NOT included Dem politicians, Code Pink, NION, VFP, IVAW, moveon.org, and every other libertard who did NOT support this successful liberation of Iraq.
It’s also worth mentioning here just one problem, among the many others, that concerns those that live outside the Bush box of foreign affairs regarding Iraq, and that’s Iranian influence.
It’s of course not enlightening to those that think about Iraq that minimizing Iranian influence in Iraq will be a pretty hard thing to do, yet it’s ESSENTIAL for one to say we’ve ‘won’. Iran occupies a special position for Iraq, it’s its neighbor. (It might help explain why Bush believes we must continue with a large troop force in Iraq.)
Further, unlike the US, Iran can’t be indifferent to what happens in Iraq. Iran can befriendly or hostile, but not ambiguous — the Iranians don’t have other options about where to live, the two are tied together whether they like it or not.
Therefore, if we are determined to keep large forces in Iraq for maintaining and tamping down Iranian influence, Iranians will be determined to undermine our attempt. … and so it will go.
But fret not, we’ve already ‘won’.
Scott Malensek
15 years ago
Doug, what’s OPTION B-completely withdraw, let Iran undermine Iraq till it collapses, then let Iran expand radical Islamic influence from India to the Med? You seem to be suggesting that their only interest in Iraq is to somehow oppose the US, and that if the US wasn’t there, then there’d be no need to take interest and undermine Iraq’s govt. I suggest that if the US wasn’t there at all, there’d be MORE interest to undermine Iraq’s govt as a means of opposing the US.
doug
15 years ago
Scott,
Yes, “option B –completely withdrawal.” Why? Because Iran will not “undermine Iraq till it collapses, then let Iran expand radical Islamic influence from India to the Med.” Where did you hear of such a scenario?
Scott said, “You seem to be suggesting that their only interest in Iraq is to somehow oppose the US, and that if the US wasn’t there, then there’d be no need to take interest and undermine Iraq’s govt.” No. Of course they have other possible interests:
1. Trying to establish an Islamic state and preventing the formation of a pro-Arab, pro-U.S., secularist regime.
2. Preventing the revival of Najaf from overtaking Qom as the seat of Shi’ite scholarship.
3. Obtaining influence over Iraq’s natural resources, mainly oil.
4. Iran would love an unfettered highway and airspace through Iraq to Syria.
5. And of course, the most important, driving U.S. forces from Iraq. Without this, none of the above is possible.
In essence, your understanding of “undermining” and “influencing” means Iran plans to ‘collapse’ Iraq, as far as i can see. That’s absurd. Iran has no interest in destroying Iraq. It is against the interests of its own state to have Iraq collapse. There are numerous reasons why this is the case.
doug
15 years ago
The US starts talks, or rather, “listening” with Iran today; we’ve quietly, no place quieter than here, changed our policy on Iran. Today we will hold face-to-face talks with officials for the first time in nearly 30 years as we have sent its Under Secretary of State William Burns to Geneva to “listen”.
I guess when your back is to the wall you do what you have to do.
‘Back to the wall’, you may say, what are you talking about??
In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Barack Obama’s 16 timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq is the right one.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says he agrees with US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plans for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says he agrees with US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plans for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Maliki was careful to back away from outright support for Obama. “Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business,” he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain’s more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”
Iraq, Maliki went on to say, “would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations.” He also emphasized though that the security agreement between the two countries should only “remain in effect in the short term.”
The comments by the Iraqi leader come as Obama embarks on a trip to both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as to Europe. Obama was in Afghanistan on Saturday to, as he said prior to his trip, “see what the situation on the ground is … and thank our troops for the heroic work that they’ve been doing.” The exact itinerary of the candidate’s trip has not been made public out of security concerns, but it is widely expected that he will arrive in Iraq on Sunday to meet with Maliki.
Maliki has long shown impatience with the open-ended presence of US troops in Iraq. In his conversation with SPIEGEL, he was once again candid about his frustration over the Bush administration’s hesitancy about agreeing to a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. But he did say he was optimistic that such a schedule would be drawn up before Bush leaves the White House next January — a confidence that appeared justified following Friday’s joint announcement in Baghdad and Washington that Bush has now, for the first time, spoken of “a general time horizon” for moving US troops out of Iraq.
“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat,” Maliki told SPIEGEL. “But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”
He also bemoaned the fact that Baghdad has little control over the US troops in Iraq. “It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population,” Maliki said.
This is defeat to Bush, it ruins their goal of establishing a strong, permanent military presence for Iraq to both secure the oil and threaten Iraq’s neighbors.
These statements above now cement what we have been saying for years: Bush wanted to stay for his own purposes in Iraq against the will of the people of Iraq and the will of the people in the US.
This interview is just the start of what’s going to pour from the lips of the Maliki administration during Obama’s visit.
That’s why his ‘back is against the wall’. Bush knew this was coming. He’s no longer able to find little white ponies where he used to see them. Now it’s on to listening and learning in the ME, not dictating how it’s gonna be.
You are SOOOO full of it Doug. You keep picking those cherries out there! Maybe one day you can finally bake that pie.
You really should work in Hollywood. It’s clear you prefer your own fantasy over reality.
doug
15 years ago
FOX news now has the story of Maliki’s comments:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a German magazine that he supports Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months,” al-Maliki told Der Spiegel. He said he wants U.S. troops to leave “as soon as possible.”
The apparent endorsement of a cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy is a big boost for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee ahead of his scheduled meeting with al-Maliki. Obama, who is touring both Afghanistan and Iraq for the first time since becoming a presidential candidate, arrived Saturday in Afghanistan, where he is meeting with U.S. troops.
…
Al-Maliki told the magazine that his comments were “by no means an election endorsement.”
But he seemed to refer disparagingly to McCain when he said “short time periods” in Iraq are more “realistic,” while “artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems.”
Just an hour ago the NYT’s ballooned Maliki’s statement (“Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” … “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes”) into their lead story on Iraq. So, for now it’s catching fire.
The reality behind his statement is ENORMOUS politically.
For now it provides a golden armored talking point for the Obama campaign. Obama’s plan, after all, has been again and again, attacked by McCain and the GOP as reckless, irresponsible, and signs of his inexperience in foreign affairs. Hence, now, more clearly, more distinctly, more forcefully than ever before, Obama can reply: the Prime Minister of Iraq wants us to leave as “soon as possible as far as we’re concerned.”
I”m thinking this talking point is so helpful to Obama that I suspect that, even as I write this, the Bush administration is now using all means necessary diplomatically to have Maliki walk-back his comments, at least qualify to it –again– somehow, (yes, somehow) to make it seem less like an outright endorsement of Obama’s plan.
But this just may be the match that lit the fuse for this to be the beginning of the end of our occupation. This will be an interesting test of how much influence the Bush administration has over Maliki.
So, with that in mind we have, 1. a Bush-Maliki SOFA that’s dead, 2. a euphemistic ‘time horizon’ that’s just a vague term for “timetable,” and now, 3. Maliki’s own words to support Obama’s withdrawal plan.
Just how the administration and McCain will be able to claim ‘up is down’ with Maliki’s new remarks one will have to stain imaginative limits.
Doug, I heard Condi on a talk show either late last night or early this AM… again a blur in my current schedule.
The US is going with either an EU or Brit (I think… can’t remember which) representative to speak with an official in Iran’s nuke problem *program* (Freudian slip… LOL) to present a package of economic benefits. She said the US envoy is only there to indicate that the US is in support of the economic package offered. They will not talk, and they will not negotiate. Thus the “listen”.
This is not direct talks to Iran, nor is it any negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Conditions still remain they must stop enriching uranium prior to any US talks.
So I think you are overblowing the “change” in policy. This is a “change” I can live with. Silent backup support, but still holding their feet to the fire. One would think you’d be overjoyed. However this is not, as you seem to allude to, a Bush admin caving in against his beliefs.
INRE a withdrawal timeline. Two facts:
1: Withdrawal of troops under today’s conditions is a whole different story than Obama’s promise of doing this pre-Surge. It is only the Surge – something BHO’s mistaken judgment fought tooth and nail – that has allowed this premise to go forward with reasonable expectations. However the devil will again be in the details. Conditions on the ground, if they change, could and should alter the withdrawal schedule.
2: Under either a GOP or DNC CIC, the withdrawal will take place, as has been planned since day one when conditions warranted it.
The difference between BHO and JSM is the latter will keep abreast of ground conditions and work with the Iraqis to alter as needed. The former will just be a bulldog no matter what happens because, as he has proven, he does not listen. He lays out a foreign policy *before* he goes to the Middle East. He has no intentions of changing his mind – no matter what he hears.
Oh yeah… had to laugh at Obama billing this as a “listening” tour. Me suspects that’s because he knows if he opens his mouth, he’s out of feet to insert.
And dang I wish you’d stop telling us what Maliki thinks. You haven’t got a clue. The man is posturing pre-elections…. just like Obama. You are not figuring Iraq power plays and political strategy into your consideration.
Again, just like in the case of the death of Maliki’s relative in a raid – you’re predicting doom and gloom. You just do not have a great track record as a seer, guy.
BTW, Iran, we have been engaging them for quite some time INRE Iraq. So this is not the first time we’ve met with the Iranians. Not to mention we’ve met with them at summits and other locations.
Michael Yon concurs:
We have won the war in Iraq. By “we” I mean the Coalition and the Iraqis. Unless there is some unexpected reversal, what lays ahead is the challenge of building a better Iraq
To further clarify: “We” does NOT included Dem politicians, Code Pink, NION, VFP, IVAW, moveon.org, and every other libertard who did NOT support this successful liberation of Iraq.
Get it?
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Has the ‘surge’ worked, have we ‘won’ in Iraq?
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=26938
It’s also worth mentioning here just one problem, among the many others, that concerns those that live outside the Bush box of foreign affairs regarding Iraq, and that’s Iranian influence.
It’s of course not enlightening to those that think about Iraq that minimizing Iranian influence in Iraq will be a pretty hard thing to do, yet it’s ESSENTIAL for one to say we’ve ‘won’. Iran occupies a special position for Iraq, it’s its neighbor. (It might help explain why Bush believes we must continue with a large troop force in Iraq.)
Further, unlike the US, Iran can’t be indifferent to what happens in Iraq. Iran can befriendly or hostile, but not ambiguous — the Iranians don’t have other options about where to live, the two are tied together whether they like it or not.
Therefore, if we are determined to keep large forces in Iraq for maintaining and tamping down Iranian influence, Iranians will be determined to undermine our attempt. … and so it will go.
But fret not, we’ve already ‘won’.
Doug, what’s OPTION B-completely withdraw, let Iran undermine Iraq till it collapses, then let Iran expand radical Islamic influence from India to the Med? You seem to be suggesting that their only interest in Iraq is to somehow oppose the US, and that if the US wasn’t there, then there’d be no need to take interest and undermine Iraq’s govt. I suggest that if the US wasn’t there at all, there’d be MORE interest to undermine Iraq’s govt as a means of opposing the US.
Scott,
Yes, “option B –completely withdrawal.” Why? Because Iran will not “undermine Iraq till it collapses, then let Iran expand radical Islamic influence from India to the Med.” Where did you hear of such a scenario?
Scott said, “You seem to be suggesting that their only interest in Iraq is to somehow oppose the US, and that if the US wasn’t there, then there’d be no need to take interest and undermine Iraq’s govt.” No. Of course they have other possible interests:
1. Trying to establish an Islamic state and preventing the formation of a pro-Arab, pro-U.S., secularist regime.
2. Preventing the revival of Najaf from overtaking Qom as the seat of Shi’ite scholarship.
3. Obtaining influence over Iraq’s natural resources, mainly oil.
4. Iran would love an unfettered highway and airspace through Iraq to Syria.
5. And of course, the most important, driving U.S. forces from Iraq. Without this, none of the above is possible.
In essence, your understanding of “undermining” and “influencing” means Iran plans to ‘collapse’ Iraq, as far as i can see. That’s absurd. Iran has no interest in destroying Iraq. It is against the interests of its own state to have Iraq collapse. There are numerous reasons why this is the case.
The US starts talks, or rather, “listening” with Iran today; we’ve quietly, no place quieter than here, changed our policy on Iran. Today we will hold face-to-face talks with officials for the first time in nearly 30 years as we have sent its Under Secretary of State William Burns to Geneva to “listen”.
I guess when your back is to the wall you do what you have to do.
‘Back to the wall’, you may say, what are you talking about??
This is defeat to Bush, it ruins their goal of establishing a strong, permanent military presence for Iraq to both secure the oil and threaten Iraq’s neighbors.
These statements above now cement what we have been saying for years: Bush wanted to stay for his own purposes in Iraq against the will of the people of Iraq and the will of the people in the US.
This interview is just the start of what’s going to pour from the lips of the Maliki administration during Obama’s visit.
That’s why his ‘back is against the wall’. Bush knew this was coming. He’s no longer able to find little white ponies where he used to see them. Now it’s on to listening and learning in the ME, not dictating how it’s gonna be.
You are SOOOO full of it Doug. You keep picking those cherries out there! Maybe one day you can finally bake that pie.
You really should work in Hollywood. It’s clear you prefer your own fantasy over reality.
FOX news now has the story of Maliki’s comments:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/19/maliki-i-support-obamas-withdrawal-timetable/
Just an hour ago the NYT’s ballooned Maliki’s statement (“Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” … “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes”) into their lead story on Iraq. So, for now it’s catching fire.
The reality behind his statement is ENORMOUS politically.
For now it provides a golden armored talking point for the Obama campaign. Obama’s plan, after all, has been again and again, attacked by McCain and the GOP as reckless, irresponsible, and signs of his inexperience in foreign affairs. Hence, now, more clearly, more distinctly, more forcefully than ever before, Obama can reply: the Prime Minister of Iraq wants us to leave as “soon as possible as far as we’re concerned.”
I”m thinking this talking point is so helpful to Obama that I suspect that, even as I write this, the Bush administration is now using all means necessary diplomatically to have Maliki walk-back his comments, at least qualify to it –again– somehow, (yes, somehow) to make it seem less like an outright endorsement of Obama’s plan.
But this just may be the match that lit the fuse for this to be the beginning of the end of our occupation. This will be an interesting test of how much influence the Bush administration has over Maliki.
So, with that in mind we have, 1. a Bush-Maliki SOFA that’s dead, 2. a euphemistic ‘time horizon’ that’s just a vague term for “timetable,” and now, 3. Maliki’s own words to support Obama’s withdrawal plan.
Just how the administration and McCain will be able to claim ‘up is down’ with Maliki’s new remarks one will have to stain imaginative limits.
So let’s see what they come up with.
Doug, I heard Condi on a talk show either late last night or early this AM… again a blur in my current schedule.
The US is going with either an EU or Brit (I think… can’t remember which) representative to speak with an official in Iran’s nuke
problem*program* (Freudian slip… LOL) to present a package of economic benefits. She said the US envoy is only there to indicate that the US is in support of the economic package offered. They will not talk, and they will not negotiate. Thus the “listen”.This is not direct talks to Iran, nor is it any negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Conditions still remain they must stop enriching uranium prior to any US talks.
So I think you are overblowing the “change” in policy. This is a “change” I can live with. Silent backup support, but still holding their feet to the fire. One would think you’d be overjoyed. However this is not, as you seem to allude to, a Bush admin caving in against his beliefs.
INRE a withdrawal timeline. Two facts:
1: Withdrawal of troops under today’s conditions is a whole different story than Obama’s promise of doing this pre-Surge. It is only the Surge – something BHO’s mistaken judgment fought tooth and nail – that has allowed this premise to go forward with reasonable expectations. However the devil will again be in the details. Conditions on the ground, if they change, could and should alter the withdrawal schedule.
2: Under either a GOP or DNC CIC, the withdrawal will take place, as has been planned since day one when conditions warranted it.
The difference between BHO and JSM is the latter will keep abreast of ground conditions and work with the Iraqis to alter as needed. The former will just be a bulldog no matter what happens because, as he has proven, he does not listen. He lays out a foreign policy *before* he goes to the Middle East. He has no intentions of changing his mind – no matter what he hears.
Oh yeah… had to laugh at Obama billing this as a “listening” tour. Me suspects that’s because he knows if he opens his mouth, he’s out of feet to insert.
And dang I wish you’d stop telling us what Maliki thinks. You haven’t got a clue. The man is posturing pre-elections…. just like Obama. You are not figuring Iraq power plays and political strategy into your consideration.
Again, just like in the case of the death of Maliki’s relative in a raid – you’re predicting doom and gloom. You just do not have a great track record as a seer, guy.
BTW, Iran, we have been engaging them for quite some time INRE Iraq. So this is not the first time we’ve met with the Iranians. Not to mention we’ve met with them at summits and other locations.
This situation differs little.