U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq's cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal from the country, according to senior American officials.
The draft agreement sets 2011 as the date by which all remaining U.S. troops will leave Iraq...
Teams of American and Iraqi negotiators spent months haggling over the deal, which represents a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago, when talk of timetables and deadlines was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and other Republicans in Washington...
President George W. Bush is almost certain to accept the agreement, according to U.S. officials. The administration believes that the deal doesn't require congressional approval and won't present it to U.S. lawmakers.
American soldiers will withdraw from cities across Iraq next summer and all US combat troops will leave the country within three years, provided the violence remains low, under the terms of a draft agreement with the Iraqi Government.
Undoubtedly, McCain will try to hang his hat on the "provided the violence remains low" language; "It's about conditions on the ground! Conditions on the ground!! Grrr.. Get off my lawn." But that distinction is a tough sell, and this status of forces agreement sure looks a lot like the one Obama proposed (and that McCain called naive):
Obama believes any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops
What we're looking at here is basically confirmation of Obama's proposals.
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops but may lift the order if a planned Iraq-U.S. security agreement lacks a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, a spokesman said Thursday.
The point being that The Surge was not primarily responsible for the cessation of violence; rather it was the al-Sadr cease-fire which initially took effect last August, the month before Patreaus's presentation to congress in which he took sole credit and mentioned Muqtada al Sadr not even once. (Full text at Real Clear Politics)
It would appear that Bush has little say in what happens in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr is calling the shots. And Muqtada wants a timetable.
The AP is reporting that the United States and Iraq are close to a deal on timetable for withdrawal. The article states that combat troops would be withdrawn by 2010, with remaining troops to be pulled out 3 years later.
The deal seems to be hinging on the U.S.'s request for legal immunity for U.S. troops.
A timetable is part of a security agreement being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials. Both sides stress the deal is not final and could fall apart over the issue of legal immunity for American troops.
The authors STEPHEN BIDDLE, MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK published an Op-Ed in today's NYT which argues that we are Not Quite Ready to Go Home.
They argue it would be morally incorrect to leave Iraq in the timeframe that Obama and al Maliki prefer. Essentially, they rely upon Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" meme: "You broke it, you own it".
Well, with all the shaking out here in Los Angeles (I've been in every on of them since the Bakersfield earthquake in 1949, and this was nothing), I know this is not earth-shattering but McFlip-flop is at it again; Yawn...same 'ol, same 'ol!
John McCain has reversed himself once again, expressing his willingness to increase Social Security taxes, despite his previous statements to the contrary:
At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.
"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."
In a March 16 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, McCain said he would cut taxes where possible, and not raise them.
John McCain apparently saw the writing on the wall, and it told him he had better change his position in regards to a timetable in Iraq or be left in the dust. It was increasingly apparent that the sovereign Iraqi government were sold on Obama's 16-month plan, so McCain stopped criticizing it and jumped on board.
"I think it's a pretty good timetable" stated McCain on Friday during an interview on CNN's Situation Room. Of course he tried to provide some difference between Obama and him by saying that it depends on conditions on the ground, though Obama has always maintained that as well.
I am not sure if the McCain camp is going to pull back from this statement, but yes according to Reuters, McCain agreed that the troops can be pulled out within two years. I am in disbelief as I write this.
During McCain's visit with GHWB, McCain was asked whether the troops could be pulled out within two years. Normally, a question like this would have fallen on deaf ears. It was only last May that McCain said in Colorado, "I will never surrender in Iraq."
Many have noted that Maliki's preference for Obama's Iraq plan has put the Bush/McCain tag team in the untenable position of appearing to support the Democratic position on Iraq, or of attempting to throw Maliki under the bus, or of creating a preposterous middle ground between "time horizons" and "timetables." The bobbing, weaving and dancing on Iraq that the GOP is having to do in the wake of this news leaves many Republican strategists rightly believing that, to sum it up, "they're fucked."
Gotta' love Chuck! Here he is making the point that the trip so far is a huge win for Obama, and that even in his "CENTCOM clarification" Maliki used the word "timetable," reinforcing Obama's message on ending the war. According to Todd, this all points to the economy returning as the central issue of the campaign.
Brown plans to withdraw troops as he backs Obama over 'war on terror'
Big as Mailiki's endorsement (subsequently modified) of Obama's 16-month timetable (a/k/a time horizon) is, this is bigger. Bush's favorite ally has turned on him.
If this has already been written about I apologize. I did a quick search before I wrote this and didn't see any others.
With the recent news that the Iraqi government has demanded a timetable for withdrawal (which, by the way, got way less media attention than it should have--but I guess Jesse Jackson's off-color remarks and Christie Brinkley's divorce are much bigger news), it's becoming more and more clear that a long-term presence in Iraq would be unpopular with just about everyone: Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi government, the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of the rest of the world.
In Monday's New York Times, Barack Obama will lay out his plan for withdrawal, taking into account the current situation on the ground and the recent requests for withdrawal from the Iraqi government.
Iraq has been in the news a lot lately. Talk of troop reductions and timetables fill the air. Obama has famously called for a withdrawal of all U.S. combad troops in 16 months. The Naval Posgraduate school has completed a report that the U.S. could cut troop numbers to 50,000 by 2009. Even the Bush administration is hinting at troop cuts.
The subject of timetables which was once verboten, is now being brought up by Iraqi officials.
The long term US/Iraqi force strength agreement negotiated between the Bussh administration and Iraq and never seen by the Senate, is also in deep trouble.
So where does that leave the candidates on Iraq? Where does that leave us? And what will the final shape of US troop strength in Iraq be?
Should the U.S. withdraw all combat troops in 16 months as Obama has promised? Will Kossacks give him more flexibility on that front?
I think Obama should work hard to round up U.N., NATO and Arab League troops to fill whatever vaacuum that is brought about by the U.S. drawdown, but I think US troops will be in Iraq for at least Obama's first term, but I think we should tell the Iraqis that we should be out of Iraq lock stock and barell in five years.
Some politicians never seem to learn that a timetable equals marking a date for "defeat and retreat." It would be as good as throwing up a white flag, tucking our tail between our legs, turning over Iraq to the militants, and telling al Qaeda to just come and get it. Who, knowing it would spell doom for the government of Iraq, would suggest such a thing?
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.
Oh.
With the UN mandate that sanctions the US presence in Iraq running out at the end of this year, negotiations for a "status of forces" agreement have been underway for some time. John McCain and Bush officials have been looking at this as a chance to secure the next hundred years of US troops in Iraq. The Iraqis seem to see it another way.
"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.
In a rebuff to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Pentagon said Monday that any timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground there.
Maliki told Arab ambassadors on Monday he was pressing for such a timetable in negotiations with Washington on an agreement on the status of US forces in Iraq beyond 2008...
Maliki's comments to Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates marked the first time he has specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal.
"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as saying.
"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.
Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post writes a short article... with huge ramifications for the General Election here in the US and the Iraq War...
... and why the HELL is this not being reported anywhere else??? If it is... it must be on the back page.
I know we've been caught up in in the hard-fought primary battle, but this is everything that Bush is currently trying to bypass the House and Senate in order to set up permanent bases.
This is against the McCain/Bush/GOP argument that have been using for years.
Today in a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs two members of the Iraqi Parliament told members of Congress several new truths. One was that the only reason there was so much violence in Iraq was because the US Troops were there. That the violence was not pointed at Iraqis but at the Occupier's and that it would end when a Timetable was in place.
A interesting aside is that the only Hawkish member of the House present was Dana Rohrbacker, and he is nuts anyway. The only other Republican present almost flat out apologized for the War, stating we went in on a lie and he knew it now. More on the flipside
