Iraqi Official Says Government Wants Timetable for Withdrawal

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jul 8, 2008.

  1. (Shit, we "liberate them" and what the hell do they do? They want to act like they are a sovereign democratic nation and free to control what the US forces do and when they do it? Talk about gratitude...)

    Iraqi Official Says Government Wants Timetable for Withdrawal
    Statement Is Strongest Yet Regarding Negotiations Over U.S. Military Role

    By Ernesto Londoño
    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Tuesday, July 8, 2008; 2:45 PM

    BAGHDAD, July 8 -- Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday that his government would not sign an agreement governing the future role of U.S. troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.

    The statement was the strongest yet by an Iraqi official regarding the politically controversial negotiations between Iraq and the United States over the U.S. military role in Iraq. A United Nations mandate that sanctions the presence of U.S. troops in the country expires in December.

    Speaking to reporters in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie declined to provide specific dates, but said his government is "impatiently waiting" for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.

    "There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control," Rubaie said. "We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq."

    On Monday Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement saying his government was inclined to sign a memorandum of understanding with the United States that included a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

    Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite religious leader.

    The Bush administration has long opposed a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, arguing that the American military should leave only when Iraq's security forces are capable of securing the country and that setting a pullout date would allow insurgents to lay low until after U.S. troops were gone.

    A U.S. Embassy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, would not directly address Rubaie's comments. In an e-mail, the official said: "We all want to see security control handed over as quickly as possible and as conditions allow."

    U.S. officials say the Iraqi army and police have made great strides in recent months. But the forces remain heavily dependent on the U.S. military, which has been providing training, air support and millions of dollars worth of weapons, vehicles and aircraft.

    Shiite parliament member Ali al-Adeeb, a close Maliki ally, said the Iraqi government is proposing that the withdrawal of U.S. troops be linked to the handover of security responsibility for the provinces, the Associated Press reported.

    Iraq has assumed primary responsibility for security in nine of Iraq's 18 provinces, but U.S. troops operate freely throughout the country.

    Iraq is proposing that U.S. troops withdraw from all Iraqi cities once the United States has handed over responsibility for security in all provinces, Adeeb told the wire service.
  2. Sam321


    As if that's going to happen. Yes, let's just leave so Iran can have Iraq's oil. Makes a lot of sense.

    And then President Obama can grovel to the Iranians as he promises, and plead that America will open one new Mosque for every new Christian church. And then perhaps, just perhaps, Iran will ensure that our gas prices will stay below $10 a gallon.
  3. This is the logical conclusion of Bush's idiotic obsession with imposing democracy on Iraq. If the Iraqi government wants us out, we really have two choices. Arrest them or leave. In truth, the last thing they want is for us to leave. This is merely their opening offer in what will be a long drawn out negotiation to try to get as much US taxpayer money for themselves as possible in exchange for basing rights.

    It points up the wisdom of my many posts arguing that we should have elevated some Iraqi Army colonels to run the country and directed our own efforts at securing and managing the oil industry and putting pressure on Iran.
  4. In other words, we should have acted like the Soviet Union...

  5. Idiotic is right, what a nightmare this has been from day one. With all the saber rattling and finger pointing to Iran now, I worry that we'll just send the troops there, or use all of Iraq as a base. We can't stop the civil war, and we've been told that by so many military leaders on the ground in Iraq. And, yes I tend to agree about the Oil fields and all, what a screw job that turned out to be. We waste a trillion dollars while the bozo's still sell the oil and keep the money. All this in the name of the war on terror, which we certainly fueled recruiting in Iraq, where there were no alQuaeda before we invaded.

    We deserted the Iraqi's loyal to the U.S. in Desert Storm back in the 1990's, then they get rounded up by Saddam and killed. We blame Saddam for this, and then go after him while Binladen is roaming free God knows where. We exhaust our entire troop strength down to the last Reserve Unit, and then basically ignore the injured returning soldiers.

    Obama meeting with Iran and others instead of bombing? Why the hell not? I'm not an Obama worshipper, but they do tell us in school that communication is key.

    This is not the America that I grew up with, what the Hell happened? Can't blame all this on a group of crazy bad guys from 9/11 that had nothing to do with Iraq.

    What a nightmare.

  6. I am merely advocating respecting their cultural traditions instead of forcing our uniquely western approach onto them. I am surprised you have a problem with that.

    Islam and democracy don't mix. That is obvious. The only country that has managed to have both with any degree of success is Turkey, and they had a strict law against bringing religion into politics. Unfortunately, that is being eroded rather quickly.

    In any event, our leaders should be concerned about what is best for us, not what is best for Iraq. Bush should be impeached, not fro gitmo or othe rliberal obsessions, but for wasting our tax money on public works projects in Iraq. As another poster noted, they merrily collect oil revenues and let us pay the bills.
  7. It is their cultural tradition to be invaded, and then expel the invaders if that is what you are talking about.

    By the way, Iran was not an Islamic state under Saddam, so it is not an Islamic tradition that we are fighting against.

  8. I understand you are rooting for al qaeda and are thrilled whenever Lara Logan can breathlessly report one of their attacks.
  9. Why root for Al Quaeda?

    I don't believe that this is about Al Quaeda one bit.

    You don't really believe that crap that Al Quaeda is marshaling all their efforts in Iraq to stop the US and if we don't fight them in Iraq we will fight them on the streets of Anytown USA, do you?

    Wait, you listen to Rush, watch Fox News 24/7....

    Of course you believe the party line.

  10. You think the attacks in iraq are spontaneous outbursts of justifiable rage?

    Time to get past the DailyKos koolaid that we went into iraq to steal their oil. If only.

    I do appreciate your daily reminders why, no matter how revolting McCain is, we just can't trust the safety of the country to Obama and the crowd of leftwingers he would bring with him.
    #10     Jul 10, 2008