Jul

Iraqi PM Maliki Envisions 16 Month Timetable For Withdrawal

Posted by: Curt @ 11:34 am in Barack Obama, The Iraqi War

Visited 1235 times, 2 so far today

Obama in January of 2007:

That is why today, I’m introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.

This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

Btw, Allah noticed that Der Spiegel changed their translation of the interview.

Back then President Bush refused to listen to this kind of talk, thankfully, and we won the war. Today Maliki told Der Spiegel that a withdrawal from Iraq 16 months from now, as Obama is suggesting, sounds about right. What would have happened if they had followed Obama’s advice a year and a half ago?

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

~~~

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. 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.

Now it appears that Obama supported the Surge before he was against the Surge because he knew then that it would lead to a implementation of his withdrawal plan sooner or later.

Sigh….how in the world do these Democrats fall for this crap?

It’s downright humorous that the Democrats believe this to be some kind of defeat for President Bush. We won the war BECAUSE Bush refused to listen to defeatist talk from the likes of Obama. Now Maliki see’s an end to this war for the same exact reason that Obama said we we’re losing the war. Political reconciliation:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

Obama, Hillary and the rest believe Iraq was a horrible mistake. No so says Maliki:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?

Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator’s nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future.

Another rebuke of Obama and his ilk.

Face it, if the Democrats had their way a few years ago al-Qaeda would have a country to run its war against the west from, after a terror campaign that could only be considered as genocidal. But hey, a few units would have been in Okinawa to watch and wave.

The Democrats will spin this as a victory because Maliki wants a withdrawal of all troops apparently (we shall see on that one), but for years the Dem’s have wanted out of Iraq when our backs we’re up against the wall. Now that we have pretty much wrapped this war up and the Iraqi’s feel they can do it on their own in a few years because Bush refused to listen to them, somehow, someway, the Dem’s think of this as a defeat for Bush.

Too funny.

UPDATE

A Blog For All has it dead on:

Let’s look at what Obama has wanted. He wanted to cut and run. He opposed the troop surge. He said that the surge would not work. Now, after the Bush Administration and the US military did all the heavy lifting, he now wants to take credit and push for a withdrawal along timetables?

Taken together, Obama has not changed his position, but now is spinning his defeat and retreat withdrawal plan as some kind of victory for which he can take credit.

The only reason that the Iraqi government might consider any kind of a time table is because President Bush went ahead with the troop surge, listened to General Petraeus (called Betrayus by Obama’s fellow travelers and supporters at Moveon.org and supported by the New York Times), and secured the country militarily so that the Iraqi government could press ahead with political gains and achieve nearly all of the 18 benchmarks set forth by the US Congress.

Gateway Pundit put it even better:

If Bush would have listened to Obama Iraq would be a failure.

But, George Bush is not Barack Obama– George Bush is a winner.

Reuters can slap lipstick on that Obama pig all they want and they still have the same candidate-
A willing war loser.

And Peter Wehner is dead on target about the failure of judgment from Obama:

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted that his superior “judgment” on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief. So what can we discern about Obama’s judgment on the surge, easily the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began in March 2003?

To answer that question, we need to revisit what Obama said about the surge around the time it was announced. In October 2006–three months before the president’s new strategy was unveiled–Obama said, “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.”

~~~

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

Print This Post

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am and is filed under Barack Obama, The Iraqi War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » What Maliki said…

29 comments so far

Fit fit

Now that’s some serious spin. Think anyone’s going to buy it?

Maliki is stabbing the Bush administration in the back, with no pretext of being subtle about it…

July 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

doug

Well, first, this is the first time Curt has said “… we won the war in [Iraq].” Curt and Yon are out in front of even McCain and Bush touting now we have won in Iraq! Not a single general anywhere, not a single Iraqi leader, not the Weekly Standard, nor even the Kagan’s have rushed to such bold hyperbole.

This should tell all that Curt and Yon are alone in their interpretation of Iraq– that what they have to offer is imprudent speculation with no regard to the careful pronounced judgments of almost everyone that the security gains are “fragile and reversible”.

And second, Curt asks, “What would have happened if they had followed Obama’s advice a year and a half ago?” The truth of the matter is we don’t know; never will, either. Curt, in picking up this hypothetical line of the thought, wants to move us from the revelation that Maliki is leaning to Obama’s position of withdrawal and away from Bush and McCain’s— that’s the accent here; not some idle ‘what if’ hypothetica derailment.

July 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Adrian Soto

Everyone just wait. Wait for it. Wait. Let’s see what the U.S. generals in Iraq have to say about this. The war effort is theirs to conduct.

Is the Iraqi army ready to assume full responsibility for the defense of Iraq? I think not.

Mr. Obama will spend time floating around for several days as naive and inexperienced as ever. No doubt his “Iraq policy” is as short as his days in the Senate. So Wait. Wait until he returns. We’ll see what the generals had to say. We’ll see what the generals have to say.

http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/nextgenblog/

July 19th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Americaneocon

This whole debate’s been unreal.

I wrote about Spencer Ackerman’s ravings of a madman, where he basically calls for President Bush’s death:

“The Iraq war is and has always been an obscenity, a filthy lie born of avarice and lust for power masquerading as virtue. This is what imperialism looks like. But the age of empire is over. The same hubris that led Bush into the Iraq disaster led him to miscalculate, again and again, over how to entrench it. But now he is impotent, unable to impose his will, and the nakedness of his attempted imposition has led the American and the Iraqi peoples to wake up and end his nightmare. May his war-crimes prosecutor be Iraqi; may his judge be American; and may he die in the Hague.”

I’m firmly convinced these people are fundamentally evil…

July 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

doug

“We’re f*&ked” was one response offered via email to Marc Ambinder by “a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign.”

I’d have to concur.

Later in the day, Marc tell us here is their more official response:

“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.

In other words, no comment.

And here’s a related funny-fact of the day:

The White House is quick to distribute its point of view in e-mail messages with headings like “News You Can Use,” “In Case You Missed It,” and “Setting the Record Straight.” So it was a surprise on Saturday morning when the White House distributed an article by Reuters that offered an endorsement of Senator Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by the leader of Iraq.

“Iraq PM backs Obama troop exit plan,” the headline read over a story about an interview of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he expressed support for the senator’s plan to withdraw American combat brigades from Iraq over the next 16 months.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Mr. Maliki told Der Spiegel, Reuters reported. “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Turns out it was a mistake by the White House clipping service, which had intended to distribute it internally but instead sent it to thousands signed up to receive the administration’s press releases, transcripts, statements and other documents, drawing attention to an interview that might otherwise have received less.

The timing compounded the mistake. It came a day after the White House announced that President Bush, in a significant shift, had agreed to a “general time horizon” for withdrawing American forces, though not on the strict timetable Mr. Obama favors. Mr. Maliki’s remarks suggested a position not entirely in line with President Bush’s, despite Friday’s announcement.
…

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/white-house-tips-press-off-to-maliki-interview/

No response from the White House on Maliki’s comments yet.

July 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

doug

Remember this poll?:

Earlier this week The Washington Post and ABC News said that “26 percent of respondents said Obama knows enough about world affairs to be a good president, and 63 percent said so about McCain.”
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5378482&page=1

Therefore, McCain was judged as the one with more experience in this category by an order of 2-1.

Let us remember this and see how that number is ordered next month.
————————–
In an earlier post, #8 here:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/16/some-in-washington/#comments

Mata Harley said

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.

Hardly a accurate analysis of my comments. Anyone who spends the time reading my comments knows I was skeptical of a Bush term SOFA, which did fail; I was also skeptical of McCain’s and Bush’s withdrawal strategy, which now Maliki has rejected in favor of Obama’s.

Further, Mata Harley accuses me of ignoring Maliki’s “posturing pre-elections” tactics. Again, hardly the case. Even granting completely the premise that Maliki’s statements are purely about Iraqi politics, it all amounts to this:

a. Obama’s plan for Iraq is, according to the Maliki government, the only way forward that’s politically viable in Iraq visa-vi Iraqi politics (that’s the logical entailment);

b. and since our US military draws their water from our democratic wells and honors the requests of its people’s leaders, more than it does the Iraqi government (and it’s people),

c. given the particulars of this case, it’s almost a fact that if the Iraqi government doesn’t want us to stay, we have to leave, as all leaders must acknowledge the will of the pubic IN AN ELECTION YEAR —even McCain himself has conceded the point– before taking on campaign damage– that “if asked to leave, we must leave.”

d. Therefore, I ‘have a clue.’

Additionally, Mata Harley may be comfortable with this as only Maliki’s pre-election politicing, simply ‘hoping’, as most Iraq hawks do, that Maliki throwing bones to the public will be innocent enough; however, the problem here is she simply won’t face how eruptive Iraqi politics has become, acknowledge how barely, delicately Maliki still holds office, understand how a super-majority of the public want the occupation to end and their sovereignty to be legitimated, renewed. Maliki is under tremendous public and religious siege to retake the state and remove the occupation, yet she hasn’t faced this needed fact in the story. This fact has almost always been ignored by those hawks ’soft’ on the occupation; now it cannot be, even as they might try: Maliki today has shown all, publicly, that Obama’s plan to withdrawal gets his endorsement— Before he ever met him …after months of failed negotiations with the Bush Administration! How is that for ‘political posturing’?

July 19th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Mike's America

“Anyone who spends the time reading my comments knows I was skeptical of a Bush term SOFA, which did fail; I was also skeptical of McCain’s and Bush’s withdrawal strategy”

Yeah Doug we noticed. You have a wealth of skepticism for the people who are actually getting the job DONE and seemingly NO skepticism for the man who has done nothing but make a few speeches.

You are so transparently in the Obama tank, I wonder which television network you work for? ABC, NBC or CBS?

July 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Neo

Obama first introduced legislation for a fixed withdrawal plan on January 30, 2007. According to that plan, all combat brigades would have been out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

It’s one thing to plan a withdrawal once the situation is stable, but on March 31, 2008 the defeatists where proclaiming Basra lost to Iranian backed militias, hardly a point anybody with the coalition would call victory.

July 19th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

MataHarley

Doug, you could not be further off the mark on my comments - evidently comments on other threads, as I’ve not posted on this one at all. So I’ll address you here.

You, as usual, leap to some ominous prediction based on who knows what. Maliki *is* throwing bones for pre-election posturing, and thereby only time is going to prove who’s (BHO/JSM) best predicted schedule is actually implemented for withdrawal.

The main point you choose to ignore, and now argue is…. Withdrawal *will* happen - and the quicker the better for all concerned - whether under a GOP or DNC president. Yet the only reason this withdrawal will happen is because the Surge (which Obama fought tooth and nail) has served it’s purpose both for security and political purposes. Left to Obama/Pelosi/Reid, you and I would never be standing here arguing whether Maliki wants the US to withdraw quickly leaving equipment (BHO’s schedule, probably by accident… or did he mean to desert the equipment???), or withdraw more slowly taking our equipment with us ( as JSM’s schedule allows).

Rather a moot point, don’t you think? Both are withdrawal. One leaves behind assets, or the ass didn’t know he was leaving behind assets when he made the schedule.

Thus I did not suggest, nor state that Maliki’s comments were *only* political posturing in nature. He is talking about withdrawal schedules, as is everyone else. It’s not an argument of withdrawal vs no withdrawal.

However the difference is - and still remains - what happens in our wake of leaving? Zawahiri has promised AQ will move in. Whether they are capable of doing that remains to be seen. And if Maliki (or other PM) sees that happening, they are likely to request a review of the withdrawal to make sure Iraq doesn’t fall to jihad terrorists if they can’t handle it themselves. Quite simple in theory, and complex and flexible in execution.

Obama is not flexible. He entire “judgment” and campaign promises rest on this firm schedule. You will note that Maliki did *not* construe his own comments about a withdrawal schedule as an Obama endorsement - and specifically made mention of that. He knows that what goes down on the ground affects the schedule. In that case, a fast withdrawal under Obama, sans flexibility, usurps the good of Iraq. And Maliki cares only of Iraq and it’s future.

And of course I recognize Maliki’s “pressure to retake the state”. Did I not say it’s pre election posturing? Maliki is another Musharraf story in the making… and not the last one for any leader in a Muslim nation. They will always not to want to be seen as an American puppet. But they will also be just as quick to call on the US when they need help, and take our American dollar for intel and WOT aid.. all while still proclaiming their hatred for the US.

And since I’ve not posted on this thread up to now, you can only be referring to a comment in another thread, here. (I see you already linked it, but why the heck we’re discussing it here, who knows…)

So please do not misrepresent my oft stated position that is in direct contrast to your statement that I “haven’t faced this needed fact in the story”. In short… bull shit. I suggest, instead, that it is you who does not seem to see any parallels between Muslims leaders in similar quandaries…. seen as American puppets, but also know that their nation benefit from cooperation. The trick they have is how to cooperate, without seeming to cooperate.

Instead you suggest some sort of unique anti-US/Bush hatred rising up like a phoenix from the ashes in Iraq that will cause citizens to risk their fragile democracy by forcing the US out prematurely - no matter *what* the ground circumstances. Not only will the Iraqis waste no time in asking the US to slow down withdrawal in the event of trouble, I’ll also be willing to bet they are aware GWB is not running for office this year.

So in case it’s not embedded in your memory, I’ll repeat it… yet again. All Muslim leaders that are allies of the US walk a fine line between cooperation in the global Islamic jihad war, and the popular support of their nation. In short, Maliki is saying the time is ripe for withdrawal - and boy is that a great campaign slogan. And, the sooner the better. Another great campaign slogan. If events prove that to be possible without risking Iraq, it’ll go down… under any POTUS.

However if that withdrawal is not flexible to consider Iraq’s security as a result of a change on the ground (i.e. Obama), you’ll watch him, and Jalalabi, again call on the US ally for help.

You jump the gun at every event. i.e.

I was skeptical of a Bush term SOFA, which did fail; I was also skeptical of McCain’s and Bush’s withdrawal strategy, which now Maliki has rejected in favor of Obama’s.

The SOFA hasn’t failed yet, Doug. Only in *your* mind is it a failure.

What is a fact is they haven’t reached a final agreement yet - considerably different than failing. If you try to buy a house with an offer to purchase, and the seller counters that offer with different terms, but the negotiations still continue, is the deal a failed sale? Voila…. no difference. A SOFA or agreement with the US will *not* fail until they refuse to negotiate a SOFA, *and* refuse to renew the UN mandate. If or when that happens, I’ll be right with you saying the SOFA failed.

Until then, you are just playing “chicken little” yet again.

I do read your posts, Doug, and I know you are better than this in your thought patterns… at least when you don’t get hung up on playing the political gypsy palm reader. Your problem is you are not a patient man, and can not wait to predict an failed outcome that supports the previous predictions. I notice never once have you commented on my multiple comments, pointing out how you predicted doom and gloom over the raid that killed the Maliki relative.

I believe Adrian Soto said it best above:

Everyone just wait. Wait for it. Wait. Let’s see what the U.S. generals in Iraq have to say about this. The war effort is theirs to conduct.

A simple four letter word that you would do well to remember, Doug. *Wait* before you predict. Tomorrow’s another day, and brings new events, which brings new responsible responses. Just as the Surge brought promise for withdrawal… under ANY BLOODY POTUS… so should that withdrawal schedule be flexible for the events.

July 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Gregory Dittman

That 16 month phase would be starting during the begining of the next U.S. presidential term not now.

Maliki is running for reelection and he already has the tag that he is an American puppet. He doesn’t want to be seen as an American puppet.

The new date for the hand over of all the providences is by the end of this year.

Bush did say that he would remove the U.s. troops when the Iraqi government asked him to remove the troops, not when the Iraqi troops were ready.

The biggest fear the U.S. military has is not that the Iraqi military maybe too weak, but too powerful at least compared to the Iraqi government. They fear a military coup. They also fear to a lesser extent Sadr might come back and stage a coup. The U.S. Civil War started decades after the founding of out country. A major internal could happen at any time.

What is really lacking in Iraq is air cover, but that is partially the fault of the U.S. military. They didn’t want Iraqis air bombing U.S. troops.

16 months is probably unrealistic unless stuff is left behind.

It’s time to short Al Qaeda’s stocks according to this artical.
nypost.com/seven/07192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/al_qaedas_market_crash_120538.htm?page=0

July 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Buzz

Not a single general anywhere, not a single Iraqi leader, not the Weekly Standard, nor even the Kagan’s have rushed to such bold hyperbole.

So doug I suppose you can show us any of these individuals who declared Iraq a civil war to justify NBC’s decision to use that term. How about one of them declaring that “the war is lost” to justify Harry Reid’s declaration a year ago? You can do that right? No? Well how about showing your criticism of ther rush to such bold hyperbole since you obviously have a problem when people engage in it.

July 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am

Mike's America

Poor Doug… He’s still clinging to his defeatist talking points even has his savior Obama scrubbed his web site to remove all mention of Iraq as being in a civil war or the surge as a failure.

Hey Doug: Get an updated set of talking points from headquarters! Don’t you know you are supposed to try now and take credit for winning the war?

July 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am

doug

Buzz, Harry Reid is a Senator, a man whose meat and potatoes is, not accuracy, but pragmatics. Curt is not a national politician.

Mike, I fail to understand where you’re trying to lead me. If you are stating that McCain’s original support of the surge, his main talking point on Iraq policy, is a small, tactical truth, too complicated to be understood by most Americans, but Maliki’s endorsing Obama’s withdrawal is a larger, clearer notion everyone can understand …and that’s why the site was revamped, then I think I understand.

As I see it, as I’ve stated before, the surge is over, there is now a ‘degree of balance’ for Iraq on its tightrope walk into their coming elections. The site is reflecting this movement, and no doubt, as this is politics, angling the site to accent one’s strengths is a sound course of direction.

More here on Maliki’s statements:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/204796.php

July 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am

Buzz

Buzz, Harry Reid is a Senator, a man whose meat and potatoes is, not accuracy, but pragmatics. Curt is not a national politician.

In other words its far more important what Harry Reid says than what Curt says. You are such a predictable little tool though. Playing excuses for your ideological bretheren. Nice to know you don’t actually have a problem with hyperbole though you little snot.

July 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Dave Noble

Curt said:

“Back then President Bush refused to listen to this kind of talk, thankfully, and we won the war.”

If we have won the war, let’s beef up our presense in Afghanistan and bring the rest of our troops back home in an orderly withdrawal.

Mata,

“Zawahiri has promised AQ will move in. Whether they are capable of doing that remains to be seen.”

I’m glad to see you add this disclaimer.

I have always had a problem with your taking AQs melodramatic posturing as even a reflection of their real intentions, might as well their real capabilities. Remember Saddam’s Line of Death in the first Gulf War? I always joked that yes, it was a line of death, we cross it and Iraqi soldiers die.

“Obama is not flexible.”

And when he is, as he often is, you say he has flip-flopped. Obama said: “it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.” Notice the term “goal.” A goal is not a rigid timetable. Obama’s 16- month goal is far preferable to McCain’s Bushian open-ended commitment.

“And of course I recognize Maliki’s “pressure to retake the state”. Did I not say it’s pre election posturing? Maliki is another Musharraf story in the making… and not the last one for any leader in a Muslim nation. They will always not to want to be seen as an American puppet. But they will also be just as quick to call on the US when they need help, and take our American dollar for intel and WOT aid.. all while still proclaiming their hatred for the US. “

First pre-election posturing doesn’t necessarily end with the election. It often leads to post-election policy. And hold on, did you say the blood of troops, our treasure, and the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people for the last five years, were spent so we could put a Musharaf-in-the-making in power? One who will bite the hand that has fed him and who will declare his hatred of America.

“The SOFA hasn’t failed yet, Doug. Only in *your* mind is it a failure. What is a fact is they haven’t reached a final agreement yet - considerably different than failing. If you try to buy a house with an offer to purchase, and the seller counters that offer with different terms, but the negotiations still continue, is the deal a failed sale? Voila…. no difference. A SOFA or agreement with the US will *not* fail until they refuse to negotiate a SOFA, *and* refuse to renew the UN mandate. If or when that happens, I’ll be right with you saying the SOFA failed.”

Doug, sorry to answer for you because your doing a great job yourself. Mata, it’s semantics. The current round of SOFA negotiations has ended indefinitely with no SOFA. That’s the simple fact. Everyone has punted the SOFA negotiations until after the election.

July 21st, 2008 at 7:53 am

Dave Noble

Oh, I just wanted to say I had missed the Mike and Buzz Show. Always a predictable tag-team that starts with Mike’s tisk-tisking, mock sympathy (”Poor Doug”), and suggestions that the other guy is nothing but a leftist aparatchik. Followed up by Buzz’s clever insults - you little tool, you little snot.

You guys have your pas-de-deux down pat. Do you rehearse? Or are you really the same person?

Compare that to Doug’s facts and analysis. What a boring snotty little tool he is!

Yeah, right.

July 21st, 2008 at 8:03 am

MataHarley

Happy AM, Dave Noble

We’re actually not far from a center point on many things. You might say we’re still on different sides of the fences, but at least not screaming from across the field.

I have always had a problem with your taking AQs melodramatic posturing as even a reflection of their real intentions, might as well their real capabilities. Remember Saddam’s Line of Death in the first Gulf War? I always joked that yes, it was a line of death, we cross it and Iraqi soldiers die.

Make no mistake with that disclaimer, Dave. I most certainly believe in AQ’s stated intent. However with jihad falling out of favor, and most their long established leadership dead or incarcerated, they are less efficient and more dysfunctional now. Had we quit after Afghanistan, when their popularity was at a high with empathy from Muslims, I don’t think that would be the case.

I think they will certainly try to come into our wake when leaving. But I’m not sure… unless they can move massive forces from Pakistan and Afghanistan into Iraq (not impossible), that they will be able to over run the Iraq military and police forces. But that will be their first test of readiness.

“Obama is not flexible.”

And when he is, as he often is, you say he has flip-flopped.

Sorry, guy… I’m not one who uses the terms flip flop here. It’s as irritating to me as the “kool aid” bit. I never think Obama changes his stance. In fact, I think that no matter how arrogant the lib/progressives think GWB is, BHO will prove to be even more arrogant. Already is.

I think Obama believes everything just as he did before, but he says anything to fit the moment. He’s moving to the center because he has to.

But in reality, BHO is not much different than JSM on withdrawal. BHO will campaign on a “tough love” type of withdrawal, which the gullible will love. However when events and the Iraqis request a pause, you’ll find a President Obama appears on your nightly TV screen to explain it was an unforeseen circumstance, and there is a temporary halt to the withdrawals. Then he’ll go on to reassure you that the troops will continue to come home… all but the 50-60K that aren’t combat troops, of course… and everyone will think that’s oh so different a “change”. Duh..

JSM also has a withdrawal, and probably a better idea of what it would take to do it without leaving equioment, and without leaving guys there who have no one to watch their backs as they leave. The difference between BHO and JSM is BHO will promise they will be gone by a date, and change that. JSM won’t name the date because he knows it can change, and there’s no sense making rash promises that are likely to morph.

This is exactly the same way GWB operates. It’s not “open ended”. They just aren’t foolish enough to go out on a limb merely to tell the gullible masses what they want to hear.

did you say the blood of troops, our treasure, and the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people for the last five years, were spent so we could put a Musharaf-in-the-making in power?

Stop right there. The Iraqis elected their Assembly, and the Assembly appointed Maliki. The US didn’t “put” anyone in that position. So if you please, correct your language. Because I have little tolerance for that type of false attitude. You and Doug both know better.

Sorry to hear you’re one of those Musharraf bashers. No doubt you thought Benazir was an improvement? Then you are a victim of media indoctrination and a revisionist history campaign. Musharraf may not “love” us, but he also doesn’t “hate” us.

And if you think Maliki “loves” the US, you are really in for a surprise. He is, like any other Muslim leader, mindful that his country needs something from us, but will never have any great love or respect for America. Our cultures are worlds apart. The best we will ever hope for is a leader who will do what’s right on intel and aid in holding the jihad forces back.

Mata, it’s semantics. The current round of SOFA negotiations has ended indefinitely with no SOFA. That’s the simple fact. Everyone has punted the SOFA negotiations until after the election.

First of all the analogy is the same… if your place an offer on a home, and the seller counters, the negotiations continue. The deal is still on until one side or the other refuses to negotiate further.

Thus a SOFA will only be “dead” and a failure when two things happen… and they BOTH have to happen. That would be

1: they refuse to further negotiate a Iraq-US SOFA, *and*
2: they refuse to renew the UN mandate

At that time, any agreement for US presence in Iraq is gone, and security agreements are dead. Not until then. Even a “pause” for the agreements is not a failure. It is a delay to accommodate for new elected officials input.. and that could include a new US POTUS as well.

Now, that said, you need to read the What Maliki Said… thread, because he specifically talks about the security agreements. I shall reprint his quote for your here..

….The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that’s why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush’s term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

You can read the entire section there, as well as my own personal feelings about these SOFAs. So again, I listen to Maliki, and not you or Doug.

July 21st, 2008 at 8:29 am

Dave Noble

Mata,

Good morning to you as well.

Thank you for your clarification re: flip-flopping. I personally would like to eliminate that term from our political discourse.

Now, I’m the Musharaf-basher?

It was you who disparagingly referred to Maliki as a “Musharaf-in the-making”, who would turn around like every other Muslim leader and say how much he hated America.

“Maliki is another Musharraf story in the making… and not the last one for any leader in a Muslim nation. They will always not to want to be seen as an American puppet. But they will also be just as quick to call on the US when they need help, and take our American dollar for intel and WOT aid.. all while still proclaiming their hatred for the US.”
Sounds to me like you are there putting Maliki and Musharaf in the same category of ungrateful Muslim leaders who bite the hand that feeds them.

But for the record, Musharaf is a military dictator, long in bed with Islamic fundamentalists. Bush BS’d himself and the American people by depicting him as an ally. What, pray tell, has this ally done for us, other than take our money, harbor the 9/11 Murderer, and piss and moan about how hard it is to get to him. If OBL was in the most intractable wilderness in the Rockies, I guarantee we would have gotten to him by now.

And no, I do not think Maliki loves the US. And your correction is hypertechnical. Yes, he was elected by the Iraqi people, but he wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for us. My point is that he is the current end state of our experiment in spreading democracy in the Middle East. As I have said we won the war in 2003. All meaningful success in building a stable Iraq (the WH definition of our current goal in Iraq) is dependent on Maliki and the other Iraqi politicians.

“So again, I listen to Maliki, and not you or Doug.”

As well you should. But when did Maliki use the term “conditions based” or any words to that effect?

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am

Mike's America

” flip-flopping. I personally would like to eliminate that term from our political discourse.
“–Dave Hussein Noble

I’ll bet you would.

July 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 am

MataHarley

And no, I do not think Maliki loves the US. And your correction is hypertechnical. Yes, he was elected by the Iraqi people, but he wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for us.

How absurd, Dave… the entire damn government wouldn’t be there if the US hadn’t removed Saddam. That doesn’t mean we created their government structure and picked their leaders, for cripes sake!

Now, I’m the Musharaf-basher?

It was you who disparagingly referred to Maliki as a “Musharaf-in the-making”, who would turn around like every other Muslim leader and say how much he hated America.

~~~

Sounds to me like you are there putting Maliki and Musharaf in the same category of ungrateful Muslim leaders who bite the hand that feeds them.

I want to get this out of the way… you apparently want some sort of gratitude or thanks, and consider the US the “hand that feeds them”. It is this notion that the US may perceive itself as a kindly, benevolent dictator with the power to give and take away that riles the Muslim countries.

The US forces and support groups that are there do not feel, nor conduct themselves in such a condescending way. However citizens here (obviously you…) and our press give that illusion. It’s truly a snobbish attitude to take. We liberate them from their oppression, help stand ‘em up on their feet, and shove ‘em out the door, like young adults, when ready. We do so not just for them, but for our own benefit and self defense as well. There is no room for elitist attitudes here.

Now, INRE Musharraf and your “ungrateful” dictators. Shall we revisit my statement first from #9 in it’s *entirety* and with some emphasis to make my point? You left out the first two sentences… the “subject” of the paragraph, guy.

And of course I recognize Maliki’s “pressure to retake the state”. Did I not say it’s pre election posturing? Maliki is another Musharraf story in the making… and not the last one for any leader in a Muslim nation. They will always not to want to be seen as an American puppet. But they will also be just as quick to call on the US when they need help, and take our American dollar for intel and WOT aid.. all while still proclaiming their hatred for the US.

Please note, the entire paragraph is about the pressure on Maliki during campaign season. Altho they walk that careful line even during tenure.

If you’ll note, I did not say they hated the US. I said they’d be “proclaiming” their hatred… something they need to do to retain public support or - like Obama - telling them what they want to hear. Probably because of that elistist American attitude that you demonstrated so well.

You’ll see my same “puppet theory” rephrased in #17, where I referred to you as a Musharraf basher

Sorry to hear you’re one of those Musharraf bashers. No doubt you thought Benazir was an improvement? Then you are a victim of media indoctrination and a revisionist history campaign. Musharraf may not “love” us, but he also doesn’t “hate” us.

And if you think Maliki “loves” the US, you are really in for a surprise. He is, like any other Muslim leader, mindful that his country needs something from us, but will never have any great love or respect for America. Our cultures are worlds apart. The best we will ever hope for is a leader who will do what’s right on intel and aid in holding the jihad forces back.

Again, I do not refer to either Musharraf, nor Maliki in any disparaging way. I just recognize that Muslims and their culture differ so much from our western culture that we will not necessarily be adored and held up as a role model. So I expect very little in the way of adoration from a Muslim nation or their leaders. That doesn’t bother me, and we don’t need it.

What I do expect is cooperation against jihad. And I don’t care if they have to say - in the news daily - how much they despise America (true or not) in order to keep public support for aid in the war against the spread of the global Islamic jihad movement.

But just so you know, personally I have a great deal of respect for the Musharraf’s and Maliki’s of the world. There are many that wish them dead because they deal with the US and the western world. But they choose to walk that fine line because they know it’s in the best interests for their country. Takes a lot of balls. And I have to give it to ‘em for that.

So you see, your word, disparaging was not in my context, but did land in yours. And yes, Musharraf was a dictator. Then again, despite Pakistan’s structure, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir were also. The PPP and PML-N coalition parties remain today closely aligned with many that desire Islamic law as State rule. Benazir being even more heinous, adding as one of her many corrupt accomplishments creation and nurturing of Mulla Omar’s Taliban - the old version that harbored AQ.

So I can honestly say, Musharraf has more to his credit for his tenures in power than Benazir has for hers and her tenure of corruption. At least, post 911, Pakistan did turn into a Muslim ally… or as I like to call them, a hostile or quasi ally.

Back to puppets…To give you an example of this dance of helping the US, and dealing with the “puppet” image, one need only look at Ghani’s (NWTA Gov) quote INRE the Cowboy, Obama.

“What the allies and the world must understand is that no government, whether political or military, can remain involved in this global war on terrorism unless the majority of public sentiment backs it,”….

Thus their public duality… We can expect no more - most assuredly not gratitude, love and adoration for “the hand that feeds them” - and it is rightly so. They should be for Iraq first. We should be for America first. And we should cooperate in matters of int’l safety against jihad movements.

July 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 am

Dave Noble

Mata,

“How absurd, Dave… the entire damn government wouldn’t be there if the US hadn’t removed Saddam.”

Precisely. I never said we picked their leader. The simple fact is that our blood and treasure were expended to bring democracy to the Iraqis. If we are unhappy with the end result, then our precious resources were not well spent.

It was you who spoke of Muslim leaders taking our money and then expressing hatred for us. Now, you say you’re OK with that. Are you really? It’s OK for someone we liberated to express hatred for us? The Germans and Japanese don’t express hatred for us. If we liberated the Iraqis, don’t you think they should be grateful?

“We liberate them from their oppression, help stand ‘em up on their feet, and shove ‘em out the door, like young adults, when ready. We do so not just for them, but for our own benefit and self defense as well. There is no room for elitist attitudes here.”
Again, please look at your own words. They are blatantly paternalistic,while at the same time you disavow elitism. You depict the Iraqi people as our children that we raise and when they are grown into young adults, we send them out on their own. We liberated ourselves in the 18th century. That is one of the reasons for the success of our democracy. When someone else liberates you, it is inherently demeaning.

“What the allies and the world must understand is that no government, whether political or military, can remain involved in this global war on terrorism unless the majority of public sentiment backs it,”….You quote and then add: “Thus their public duality.”

This is contradictory, the statement you quote says a government can’t support the WOT without the support of the people. And then you turn around and say, well actually they can if they make believe they hate the US. Then the people won’t catch on that they are really helping us.

First off, that’s anti-democratic on their. Secondly, it’s paternalistic on your part. And thirdly, it’s implausible; it won’t work. Look at PK under Musharaf. BTW, we didn’t give Bhutto $10B. and call her our ally in the WOT.

If I were you, I would be more careful throwing the elitist label at other people. You know, glass houses and all.

But I am enjoying this conversation. Despite my argumentative tone, I think you are really wrestling with these issues, as am I.

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am

MataHarley

Mr. Dave: I’m going to bounce out of order here on your points.

Precisely. I never said we picked their leader. The simple fact is that our blood and treasure were expended to bring democracy to the Iraqis. If we are unhappy with the end result, then our precious resources were not well spent.

I’m not unhappy with the results. Nor is it the goal to liberate so we can be “happy” with the results. A democracy is for the populus to be able to choose and form their own government, and choose their leaders. This they have done.

This is contradictory, the statement you quote says a government can’t support the WOT without the support of the people. And then you turn around and say, well actually they can if they make believe they hate the US. Then the people won’t catch on that they are really helping us.

First off, that’s anti-democratic on their. Secondly, it’s paternalistic on your part. And thirdly, it’s implausible; it won’t work. snip

I don’t know what to say to you. What you are basically saying is that if the leaders are misleading the population and they are not catching on, it’s anti-democratic. I suggest to you that goes on daily here in the good ol’ USA by our Congress, and aided by their media.

Implausible? Disbelieve all you like, but it happens before your nose daily. Muslim leaders that are aiding the US in the GWOT are always at odds with their population, who hold unpleasant views of the US. Our cultural differences will always keep that chasm wide. However the elected leaders - not the population - have the power to tacitly aid the US. They do so, then must deal with the backlash of the population. Generally the outrage dies down.

Iraq, once completely on their own, will do the same as Pakistan. They will rail about any US incursions via air (and most certainly boots on ground) into their terroritory. The leaders will, most likely, allow all they can. But they will always put on a public face of disapproval to their population. Muslims place a great deal of import on face and pride. Even the enemy finds negotiations distasteful and a sign of weakness. When they have engaged in such in the past (ala pre Tora Bora), it has been for strategic purposes to regroup and rearm.

Until you learn to see things not only thru western eyes, such a duality will always remain implausible to you. That, however, does not mean it is not a reality in practice.

It was you who spoke of Muslim leaders taking our money and then expressing hatred for us. Now, you say you’re OK with that. Are you really? It’s OK for someone we liberated to express hatred for us? The Germans and Japanese don’t express hatred for us. If we liberated the Iraqis, don’t you think they should be grateful?

In a word… no. As I said, the liberation was not only for them, but for us. Whether the Germans and Japanese hate or love us isn’t the issue. Their cultures are not as diametrically opposed as is Islam and western culture. We had more in common to begin with.

But love and gratitude isn’t the quest. Cooperation in stemming the jihad tide is.

Again, please look at your own words. They are blatantly paternalistic,while at the same time you disavow elitism. You depict the Iraqi people as our children that we raise and when they are grown into young adults, we send them out on their own. We liberated ourselves in the 18th century. That is one of the reasons for the success of our democracy. When someone else liberates you, it is inherently demeaning.

Let me address our own American Revolution first, as it applies then to the first part of your comment.

Our oppressor was an ocean away. We had all the home field advantages of lay of the land, armed citizens with resources and equipment at our disposal available from Mother Nature and man’s ingenuity. Our enemy had to ship armies and work with whatever they could bring. They had no intel on the locals and their loyalities.

By contrast, Saddam and his Ba’athists/IIS and army held all the cards, equipment and advantages. Any rebel insurrection could be easily dealt with by massacre, and future insurrections deterred by more midnight raids, imprisonment, torture and mass graves. The Iraqis as a people didn’t have a chance to go up against Saddam’s regime. In that way, they were unprotected children.

What you call elitist and paternalistic, I call common sense. When you help those not equipped be liberated, you then provide them with the knowledge and tools to maintain that liberation before walking away. Rather like dressing a wound, then following up to insure it doesn’t get infected or gangrened.

To abandon the Iraqis… who’ve never known anything but dictatorship for at least three decades… after removing Saddam would be to doom the liberation. They needed guidance to form a government structure which was totally alien to them. They did so, and made it their own. Once they get their bureauracy running… i.e. functional and supplied police, military, their budget and expenditures running thru legislation, and all red tape aspects of a central government, they are ready to fly solo.

This is not elitist. This is making sure that the lives lost in the liberation of all countries - civilian and warrior - were not in vain. Expecting gratitude, love and or adoration? *That’s* elitist.

So I wave to you, in your glass house, from my own US timber log home.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am

Dave Noble

Mata,

I didn’t mean happy as in “whoppee.” I meant satisfied. I am not satisfied. You spoke earlier of American interests trumping Iraqi interest and now you’re implying it’s not up to us to say whether we are satisfied with the results in Iraq. It most certainly is. It is our blood and treasure that was expended.

“Implausible? Disbelieve all you like, but it happens before your nose daily. Muslim leaders that are aiding the US in the GWOT are always at odds with their population, who hold unpleasant views of the US. Our cultural differences will always keep that chasm wide. However the elected leaders - not the population - have the power to tacitly aid the US. They do so, then must deal with the backlash of the population. Generally the outrage dies down.”

Please give me an example of a country that fits into your category. In Iran it’s basically the opposite of what you say. Ahmedinejad rails against the United States, but the people of Iran have much more positive views of the United States.

“I don’t know what to say to you. What you are basically saying is that if the leaders are misleading the population and they are not catching on, it’s anti-democratic. I suggest to you that goes on daily here in the good ol’ USA by our Congress, and aided by their media.”
And I don’t know what to say to you. Because it goes on in the USA, does not mean it isn’t anti-democratic. If you’re fine with the government misleading the people, so be it. I am not. I don’t want to be misled. We can handle the truth. We don’t need to be brainwashed, managed, pandered to, or manipulated.

You can tell someone is straining in an argument when they create straw men. There are enough straw men on this blog to populate every cornfield in Iowa, but I expect more from you. Did I ever say I wanted the love or adoration of the Iraqis? But gratitude is quite another thing. Why do you think General Pershing when he landed on the French coast during the First World War said “Lafayette. we are here.” Because the general was a weak-kneed sycophant kissing up to the French? No, as many have forgotten in the era of “freedom fries,” the French were instrumental in our victory against the British. First, they bankrolled the Revolution. Then Lafayette and others fought beside us. And at the decisive Battle of Yorktown, when the British fleet out of New York came down the coast to relieve our siege of Yorktown, the French ships sailed out of the James River to intercept the British fleet, maintaining the siege and enabling us to win the War. General Pershing spoke words of gratitude to the French, not love or adoration.

Yes, our situation prior to the Revolution was different logistically than the plight of the Iraqis. But my point was not to disparage the Iraqis, but rather to point out as I did that it is naturally humiliating to have a foreign army liberate you and then occupy your country for five years, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, frightening your women and children, and stopping you at checkpoints (and that’s not our troops fault, it’s what they have to do). Foreign boots on your soil evoke anger and resentment at a visceral level, whether they come as liberators or not.

“Whether the Germans and Japanese hate or love us isn’t the issue. Their cultures are not as diametrically opposed as is Islam and western culture. We had more in common to begin with.”
Germany was a Christian country, but it had effectively been a military dictatorship for many decades. Even before Hitler. And the Japanese were led by militarists who wanted to restore a feudal society. In addition, religiously the Japanese largely were Buddhist and Shintoists, both are very different from Christianity.

However, I agree with you that a Muslim culture has elements that are diametricallhy opposed to our culture. Specifically, Muslim culture is intrinsically inhospitable to democratic principles, because Islam in its fundamentalist form dictates a theocratic society. That is inherently antithetical to democracy. It involves the imposition of standards and law from above, from the clerics. It is one of the many reasons that Iraq was such a poor choice for an experiment in democracy.

Add to that two ethnicities (Arab and Kurd) interwoven with two antagonistic sects of Islam, a long history of dictatorship and no meaningful history of successful democracy and you start of with your foot very deep in a hole when you try to create a democracy in Iraq.

July 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 am

MataHarley

You spoke earlier of American interests trumping Iraqi interest and now you’re implying it’s not up to us to say whether we are satisfied with the results in Iraq.

Now what did I say to give you that impression, Dave? What I said was that it was in both the Iraqi and US interests to depose the Saddam regime. I did not say one trumped the other. Is there somewhere I did not convey my opinion with clarity? Do show me.

Mata:Muslim leaders that are aiding the US in the GWOT are always at odds with their population, who hold unpleasant views of the US.

Dave: Please give me an example of a country that fits into your category. In Iran it’s basically the opposite of what you say. Ahmedinejad rails against the United States, but the people of Iran have much more positive views of the United States.

Please re read my sentence. I said “leaders that are *aiding* the US in the GWOT…”. Iran and Ahmadinejad do not fall into that category. Pakistan does. To an extent, so does the UAE/Dubai etal. However their population is more western tolerant and capitalist, so those that dissent are fewer in number than in Pakistan. But you can count on one hand the number of Muslim states that *aid* the US. With Iraq, we will add one more, after adding Afghanistan previously. Libya is not aiding the US, but did voluntarily yield their nuke ~~problem~~ *program* (second time I’ve made that freudian slip… ) after we toppled Saddam’s regime.

INRE the democratic v misleading bit…. What is construed as “misleading” is not always as it seems. For example, you felt misled on Iraq. I do not. The Harmony/IIS documents confirmed what the intel was saying… that Saddam was actively engaging in relationship with militant groups as an unofficial state weapon.

Fact is, the populus is not in possession of all the facts. They are, however, in possession of their emotions. For example, Oregon passed a feel good measure about land zoning and development here called Measure 37. What a nightmare, and what an anti-Constitutional resolution that was. It enabled a long term Oregon resident more authority to ignore comprehensive land planning, and a newer resident did not enjoy that authority. Not to mention, the impact on development affected the surrounding farms, water and water table quality. The people wanted it because it sounded good… ala “I should be able to do whatever I want with my land”.

However it was what they didn’t know about comprehensive plans and it’s effect that was it’s downfall, leading to a revote restricting it by a Measure 49. So if you ask me, do I trust the population, or those in possession of the most information, to make a decision… I’ll take the later.

I will remind you, we live in a republic, not a democracy. The “majority” do not have absolute rule of law - thank heavens. Nor do I trust putting our national security and foreign policy decisions in the hands of the population… or even Congress.

Iran is an interesting story to me, and because their population is rebellious in nature against the ruling govt, and more western friendly in culture. I tend to think that nation will end up falling by their population’s hand. At least, that is my hope.

Mata:Expecting gratitude, love and or adoration? *That’s* elitist.

Dave: Did I ever say I wanted the love or adoration of the Iraqis? But gratitude is quite another thing.

Again re read my sentence. Gratitude, love and or adoration…. meaning any one, or any combination of the three. And in all your recap of history, not one had cultural differences as wide as Islam v west. Frankly, I’m actually pleased Kuwait is as grateful and embracing western tolerance as much as they do. But I don’t consider them the norm.

The final word from me is this… I don’t need, nor demand gratitude. What I do demand is cooperation in intel and holding jihad in check. Period. Anything else is just feel good emotions.

But my point was not to disparage the Iraqis, but rather to point out as I did that it is naturally humiliating to have a foreign army liberate you and then occupy your country for five years, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, frightening your women and children, and stopping you at checkpoints (and that’s not our troops fault, it’s what they have to do).

How John Kerry of you…. And how kind of you to try and give the troops a pass by saying it’s not their fault. pshaw… I’m going to ignore that BS, Dave.

No one likes being occupied. However two facts are ever present. From day one, Bush has always said if the Iraq govt asks us to leave, we leave. They did not ask us to leave, and only as of a couple weeks ago are entertaining a formal plan for cautious, condition based withdrawal. They may have pride, but they also recognized to achieve what they wanted, they needed help.

You insinuate a psychological damage in pride by our aid to the Iraqis. I have to wonder if you extend that same analogy to the welfare programs of the US? Or is your “tough love” version only for foreign nations?

It is one of the many reasons that Iraq was such a poor choice for an experiment in democracy.

Well now, get a good recipe for crow when the Iraqis prove you wrong. You are quite incorrect. Pakistanis vote down Islamic law by majority. Palestine did not vote Hamas in for violence and jihad, they voted them in for their welfare programs. If you notice, genuine free elections in Muslim countries tend to vote for a balance between Islam and freedom, without subjecting them to rigid Islamic law as State rule.

You must recognize that an Arab democracy will not, and never will, look like the US. But then, by definition, that is democracy… they may choose to structure their rule as best suits their populus. However you are wrong that they choose to be under militant Islamic rule and vote for the 3rd world conditions that it brings.

Contrary… Iraq is the perfect place for that experiment. It has been done in other smaller Muslim countries to some extent over time. But if such a radical nation, with people who have never experienced this in their lifetime, can achieve it, so can others.

And again, you must correct your language. *We* did not try to create a democracy. The Iraqis did. Their Constitution, their structure, their elections choices (and living with their bad choices, just as we do…) their approval of it all. What we merely did was enable them the environment to do so, and gave them guidance when requested.

July 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 am

Neo

… whereas Mr. Obama was thinking in terms of retreat, Mr. Maliki on the other hand was suggesting the natural outcome of victory: that America’s soldiers, who had fought a hard won yet incidental battle against the ultimate jihadist aim of resurrecting an Islamic Empire, could go home with laurels and to acclaim.

July 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

doug

McCain talking to Blitzer a couple hours ago: [Maliki said] “it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.”

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_16_mos_i.html

After spending the whole week criticizing Obama’s 16 month timetable, McCain now appears to be embracing it, albeit, with ‘condition-based’ designations.

In less than a week,

[i]n a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama’s 16-month proposal, he not only legitimized the plan. …

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/maliki_casts_his_vote.html
–Krauthammer

I can see it now, at the R. convention we’ll hear McCain say something like:

“I’ve been saying 16 months was a good idea a long time. My 16 month timetable is conditions based; Obama’s is not, it’s ‘artificial,’ ‘fixed’, embedded in steel, unalterable, a divine command never to be broken; hence, it ‘would lead to disaster’.”

The reality is, if McCain moves any more closer, he might as well just endorse Obama’s withdrawal plan.

July 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Fit fit

“Then in April, April was a very interesting year (sic) in 2007. That’s when Harry Reid said the war is lost and we got to get out. And the buzzword was “timetables.”

“Timetables.” say to you again, the debate after the election of 2006 was whether we were going to have timetables for withdrawal or not. Timetables were the buzz word. That was the Iraq study group. That was what the Democrats said we wanted to do. Your answer should have been no.

Governor, the right answer to that question was “no,” not what you said, and that was, we don’t want to have to lay — have them lay in the weeds until we leave, and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, “timetables.”

Timetables was the buzzword for withdrawal.

July 25th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Fit fit

This man is not even trying to win the election.

July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 pm