Iraq to America: Get out of our country

[Drocket]

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq—but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/)

Definitely sounds like they're happy that we're there, between the not-so-subtle "So, when are you leaving again?" reminder and the amnesty for anyone who kills US troops.

I have to completely disagree with the assessment that Washington (read: the Republicans) are going to oppose this, though. Vastly more likely, I think, is that this is going to be treated as a major victory, as Bush publicly congratulates himself as the White House sets up a timetable for withdrawl. Not that we'll be leaving Iraq or anything, but it'll sound good for the elections.

[sbannon]

What's most amazing to me on a related note--is how the White House, Republicans in congress and Karl Rove have been running around the past few weeks pointing fingers at Democrats and saying "they want a time table for withdrawal and that will weaken us in the fight against terrorism"; yet it's being reported that Gen. Casey (the top U.S. commander in Iraq) has just delivered a plan for withdrawal that includes a detailed time table to Pentagon and White House officials???

Can anyone say Dolt!

On the Iraqi Prime Minister's demands, that's got to sting the administration a little, huh? This is the Iraqi government they supported publicly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I guess it's time to start talking regime change in Iraq again?

[Drocket]

Can anyone say Dolt!
Nah, its not being a dolt, its doublethink.
Timetable for withdrawl as proposed by Democrats - treasonous activity
Timetable for withdrawl as proposed by Republicans - proof of victory in Iraq

We're going to be seeing a lot of doublething in the coming weeks.


On the Iraqi Prime Minister's demands, that's got to sting the administration a little, huh? This is the Iraqi government they supported publicly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I guess it's time to start talking regime change in Iraq again?
I doubt it: this proposal is coming from a man who's essentially a Bush administration sock puppet. I suppose its always possible that he's finally got fed up with the whole situation, but I think its far more likely that he's simply reading his lines as written for him by Karl Rove.

This proposal serves many purposes: The first is that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want a US withdrawl. To fail to heed this is to guarantee a violent overthrow of the Iraqi government, which is none-too-stable to begin with. Having this come from a US-controlled source means the Iraqi people will be in support of a US-controlled Iraqi government.

Secondly, starting to withdraw from Iraq is the ONLY possible workable plan at this point. As long as US troops remain in Iraq at their current levels, the insurgency is only going to grow. The Iraqis don't want us there - its just that simple. To have any chance at peace, US troops must start leaving the country.

Finally, Bush absolutely could not propose this course of action as the Democrats were the ones to propose it first. Having it come from the Iraqi government gives Bush the opportunity to embrace the idea without giving Democrats any credit (again, be prepared for lots of doublethink. They've been fighting Democratic proposals for a year now: I guarantee by next weekend withdrawl will have overwhelming Republican support, as long as the Democrats don't get any credit.)

As I said, though, all of this is nothing but smoke-and-mirrors, as the US won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. Oh, I guarantee they'll bring home a few thousand troops in Sept/Oct, just in time to parade them around in front of cameras for the election. Beyond that, though, the troops will stay in Iraq, though they'll mostly stick to protecting the oil-producing areas of the country and try to stay out of the way of the locals.

[lily]

I don't know........with the rise of killings in Afghanistan, the slow return of the Taliban and Mullah Dadullah Akhun's rise to power, we're going to need those troops back in "The Forgotten War".

They ain't coming home anytime too soon........just moving across the border to finish the job they were suppose to do, before ADD hit Bush.

[BoogyMan]

What's most amazing to me on a related note--is how the White House, Republicans in congress and Karl Rove have been running around the past few weeks pointing fingers at Democrats and saying "they want a time table for withdrawal and that will weaken us in the fight against terrorism"; yet it's being reported that Gen. Casey (the top U.S. commander in Iraq) has just delivered a plan for withdrawal that includes a detailed time table to Pentagon and White House officials???

Can anyone say Dolt!

On the Iraqi Prime Minister's demands, that's got to sting the administration a little, huh? This is the Iraqi government they supported publicly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I guess it's time to start talking regime change in Iraq again?


A secret timetable for withdrawal makes much more sense than a very public one for what should be obvious reasons.Â*Â*Where is the outcry that the NYT again has outed a secret strategic plan? Not to mention that the plan the NYT outed was a military plan, NOT A POLITICAL PLAN.


Dolt?Â*Â*Gads....

[lily]

A secret timetable for withdrawal makes much more sense than a very public one for what should be obvious reasons.
You don't think they'll notice?

[BoogyMan]

Hi Lilly,

I think you missed the point of the commentary.

[lily]

Hi back atch! How so? I just didn't reply to the NYT part, because I was just discussing that on another thread.

If the withdrawl is secret, don't you think the insurgents would notice that we were withdrawing, was what I was getting at. What difference would a set time make?

[Drocket]

A secret timetable for withdrawl makes perfect sense: it'll be impossible to ever verify whether any progress is being made, meaning that it'll be impossible to prove when Bush's policies fail once again. Rather like how, after the number of functional Iraqi military divisions went from 3 to 1, that information was suddenly classified.

And really, isn't not knowing just another way to say that we're winning?

[lily]

I never thought of it that way! Thanks.....makes sense now.:D

[CheesyMuslim]

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq—but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/)

Definitely sounds like they're happy that we're there, between the not-so-subtle "So, when are you leaving again?" reminder and the amnesty for anyone who kills US troops.Â*Â*

I have to completely disagree with the assessment that Washington (read: the Republicans) are going to oppose this, though.Â*Â*Vastly more likely, I think, is that this is going to be treated as a major victory, as Bush publicly congratulates himself as the White House sets up a timetable for withdrawl.Â*Â*Not that we'll be leaving Iraq or anything, but it'll sound good for the elections.



Sorry bout that,

1. But I say we tell them that if you are going to over look all these murders, then we too will forgive our Military from any issues in the deaths of Iraqi civilians.
2. We have to let them choose their own laws.
3. Like them or not, which we willÂ*Â*always have this problem with a Islamic Country, they are different kind of people, and will do things much differently.
4. Trade off is best. Give a little ground to get a little, we can't over rule them always.
5. We have to let them go, even if we don't like it, but lets make a trade here I think.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas