Full Version: Iraq starting to ask when we're leaving
QUOTE
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 can secure the country and that setting a pullout date would allow insurgents to lay low until after U.S. troops were gone.
QUOTE
At the same time, Bush has often said he would go along with the Iraqi government's wishes. "It's their government's choice," Bush said in May 2007. "If they were to say, 'Leave,' we would leave."
QUOTE
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.
Noises from Iraq have members of its government starting to ask for withdrawal dates. Maliki himself has brought this out -- probably in an attempt to head off Al Sadr.
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
I was listening to some talk radio today about this and was really actually shocked by just how many people were trying to come up with ways Bush could ignore Maliki and try and keep on the same path. They seemed almost betrayed by the Iraqi government for even daring to ask such a question during our "negotiations" to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
This should be interesting to say the least if Maliki's spine stays strong -- which I think it will with reassurance from Iran and his desire to de-claw Al Sadr. I think the Iraqis are smart enough not to give Bush an open door to leave Americans embedded in Iraq indefinitely after Bush leaves office.
The lesson from empires past seems to have been learned, let Rome stay and it will always be there. The lessons on the dangers of nation building are going to haunt Republicans I think.
I think time tables absolutely hurts McCain. Without Iraq to define him he is done in this race as he has not the personality or support to come up with anything else. Even though the elections are a long ways away in political time and we all know anything can and often does happen I see at this time a political Katrina building for the GOP.
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
We keep hearing that Iraq is a sovereign nation, but... of course, that didn't stop us before, did it?
The fact is, there is a UN mandate for the occupation that ends December 31st. If the Iraqis allow that to expire without an agreement that allows us to stay, the administration would have a serious PR problem internationally.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
They could ignore the request. But, as I state above, that decision carries with it some serious repercussions.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Yes. But this has been a question that has been hanging in the air for some time. Many have wondered what this administration would do if asked to leave before the US felt it was done with its mission... I know I have.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
I don't know that this would have an adverse effect on either nominee.
We keep hearing that Iraq is a sovereign nation, but... of course, that didn't stop us before, did it?
The fact is, there is a UN mandate for the occupation that ends December 31st. If the Iraqis allow that to expire without an agreement that allows us to stay, the administration would have a serious PR problem internationally.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
They could ignore the request. But, as I state above, that decision carries with it some serious repercussions.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Yes. But this has been a question that has been hanging in the air for some time. Many have wondered what this administration would do if asked to leave before the US felt it was done with its mission... I know I have.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
I don't know that this would have an adverse effect on either nominee.
QUOTE
This should be interesting to say the least if Maliki's spine stays strong -- which I think it will with reassurance from Iran and his desire to de-claw Al Sadr. I think the Iraqis are smart enough not to give Bush an open door to leave Americans embedded in Iraq indefinitely after Bush leaves office
.I tend to agree and I don’t see this hurting McCain who has said we could bring home troops as the situation on the ground dictates – and this certainly will be the deciding factor. This imo shows just how well the surge has worked.
“TOYAKO, Japan (Reuters) - The United States remains opposed to setting an "arbitrary" date for withdrawing troops from Iraq, the White House said on Wednesday after Iraqi officials called for a timetable as part of a security agreement being negotiated with Washington.
"We have always been opposed and remain so to an arbitrary withdrawal date," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said to reporters traveling with President George W. Bush in Japan.
The United States believes those decisions should be "based on conditions on the ground" and Iraqi officials agree with that, she said.
Iraq's national security adviser on Tuesday said Iraq would not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it included dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces. But the government's spokesman said any timetable would depend on security conditions on the ground.
The White House said the statements from Iraqi officials about a timetable for troop withdrawal partly reflected improvements in the security situation in Iraq.
"This is about their future and they want to take on more of their own responsibility, and we want that too," she said.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/id...M00295920080710
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
So many ifs...
Our mission in Iraq is to stabilize the country so that it can join the international community as a country that doesn't harbor terrorists and can supply us oil. We are there currently on the authority of the UN (naysayers be damned) and with the consent of the Iraqi government. If we did not have the consent of the Iraqi government, we would indeed be occupiers.
If the Iraqi government demanded a timetable, then I think we would be obliged to give them one. That doesn't mean it would be posted on the Internet, however. Currently, our deployment is based upon specific goals designated by Congress to be met by the Iraqis. They are doing much better, but they aren't completely there yet. Still, it's their country.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
Negotiation. In diplomacy, few things are set in stone. Some Iraqi politicians may bluster against the US to appear strong to their voters, but I'm assuming they aren't dumb. Were the US to pull out before the Iraqis are ready, there would be chaos and I believe that the Iraqi politicians know this even though some may publicly bluster.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
No, as long as we assume that we want the same thing that the Iraqi leaders want--a stable Iraq.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
Actually, I think it may help McCain because it helps Bush back down from his no timetables stance. If we are "forced" by the Iraqis to leave, withdrawal from Iraq becomes less of risk politically.
So many ifs...
Our mission in Iraq is to stabilize the country so that it can join the international community as a country that doesn't harbor terrorists and can supply us oil. We are there currently on the authority of the UN (naysayers be damned) and with the consent of the Iraqi government. If we did not have the consent of the Iraqi government, we would indeed be occupiers.
If the Iraqi government demanded a timetable, then I think we would be obliged to give them one. That doesn't mean it would be posted on the Internet, however. Currently, our deployment is based upon specific goals designated by Congress to be met by the Iraqis. They are doing much better, but they aren't completely there yet. Still, it's their country.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
Negotiation. In diplomacy, few things are set in stone. Some Iraqi politicians may bluster against the US to appear strong to their voters, but I'm assuming they aren't dumb. Were the US to pull out before the Iraqis are ready, there would be chaos and I believe that the Iraqi politicians know this even though some may publicly bluster.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
No, as long as we assume that we want the same thing that the Iraqi leaders want--a stable Iraq.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
Actually, I think it may help McCain because it helps Bush back down from his no timetables stance. If we are "forced" by the Iraqis to leave, withdrawal from Iraq becomes less of risk politically.
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
True stability in Iraq will only come when the Iraqi's themselves cycle through the evolution of internal political change. As long as US troops remain in Iraq, there will be an insurgency. As long as there is an insurgency, there will be windows of opportunity for sectarian groups and political organizations to seize or consolidate power. US forces remaining in Iraq is certainly advantageous for some parties, providing cover and security from political or bodily annihilation, but I don't believe that it is good for the Iraqi process as a whole.
If Iraq demands a timeline, or complete withdrawal and the Bush/McCain administration refuses, it will only expose the charade for what it is. We certainly don't have many more allies left to jump ship. Any demand of this nature and the expiration of the UN Mandate will likely come after a candidate has been selected for the Presidency, so I don't see much harm coming to the President-elect. If however, it appears that Iraq will reject administration demands, then I believe McCain will suffer more than Obama in the eyes of voters.
I see nothing wrong with a timeline for withdrawal. Basing the decision solely on conditions on the ground simply opens the door for perpetual occupation. I say occupation since it is the US not the UN that is controlling infrastructure, movement and all strategic and most tactical decisions on the ground [and in the air].
Since I believe an insurgency will exist as long as we maintain armed western troops in Iraq, a timeline does not hamper the situation at all. In fact, if the various insurgent and opposition groups know that foreign troops will be leaving, they may be inclined to start normalizing their organizations into political parties rather than militia's. As part of political evolution, once the foreign presence is taken out of the equation, there will still be short term violence, but the long term political reconciliation will come to fruition much sooner rather than under artificial constructs protected by temporary foreign protection.
True stability in Iraq will only come when the Iraqi's themselves cycle through the evolution of internal political change. As long as US troops remain in Iraq, there will be an insurgency. As long as there is an insurgency, there will be windows of opportunity for sectarian groups and political organizations to seize or consolidate power. US forces remaining in Iraq is certainly advantageous for some parties, providing cover and security from political or bodily annihilation, but I don't believe that it is good for the Iraqi process as a whole.
If Iraq demands a timeline, or complete withdrawal and the Bush/McCain administration refuses, it will only expose the charade for what it is. We certainly don't have many more allies left to jump ship. Any demand of this nature and the expiration of the UN Mandate will likely come after a candidate has been selected for the Presidency, so I don't see much harm coming to the President-elect. If however, it appears that Iraq will reject administration demands, then I believe McCain will suffer more than Obama in the eyes of voters.
I see nothing wrong with a timeline for withdrawal. Basing the decision solely on conditions on the ground simply opens the door for perpetual occupation. I say occupation since it is the US not the UN that is controlling infrastructure, movement and all strategic and most tactical decisions on the ground [and in the air].
Since I believe an insurgency will exist as long as we maintain armed western troops in Iraq, a timeline does not hamper the situation at all. In fact, if the various insurgent and opposition groups know that foreign troops will be leaving, they may be inclined to start normalizing their organizations into political parties rather than militia's. As part of political evolution, once the foreign presence is taken out of the equation, there will still be short term violence, but the long term political reconciliation will come to fruition much sooner rather than under artificial constructs protected by temporary foreign protection.
You seem to hold great stock in the ability of warring groups to reconcile. It has happened before, but, It must be said, if southeastern europe is any indication, the withdrawal of a higher military power generally results in bloodshed. Prolonged bloodshed.
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
I don't think Bush will even be in the picture when the timetables are drawn. He's stalled for five years now; another five months will be child's play. After that, it's Obama's problem. Or Mccain. You never know.
I find it highly unlikely that Maliki, or any of his political peers, are going to support US withdrawal. When the troops do withdraw, heads are going to roll. And we are talking about a predominantly moslem state here, so you can take that literally.
Politicians in general, are very attached to their heads, even if they rarely use them.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
If, and this is a fairly big if, if Iraq sanctions and pushes for a US withdrawal, Bush will stall. And stall. I think, at this point in the game, Bush can be written off as a nonentity.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Well, it opens them to ridicule, and possibly litigation, but it holds no threats to their plans. The planning is over. They've had their fun. They would, of course, be extremely happy if they could finagle another twelve months, or twelve years out of the war, but what I'm getting from the White House these days is the overwhelming sense that they don't really care.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
Obama, as a kind of opponent-turned proponent-turned opponent, will probably hold more influence than McCain, who has been keeping up his constant tack about "liberation", and the "good of the Iraqi people". Then again, as other threads have illustrated, Obama's positions on a myriad number of issues are beginning to shift...so who knows, really?
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
I don't think Bush will even be in the picture when the timetables are drawn. He's stalled for five years now; another five months will be child's play. After that, it's Obama's problem. Or Mccain. You never know.
I find it highly unlikely that Maliki, or any of his political peers, are going to support US withdrawal. When the troops do withdraw, heads are going to roll. And we are talking about a predominantly moslem state here, so you can take that literally.
Politicians in general, are very attached to their heads, even if they rarely use them.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
If, and this is a fairly big if, if Iraq sanctions and pushes for a US withdrawal, Bush will stall. And stall. I think, at this point in the game, Bush can be written off as a nonentity.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Well, it opens them to ridicule, and possibly litigation, but it holds no threats to their plans. The planning is over. They've had their fun. They would, of course, be extremely happy if they could finagle another twelve months, or twelve years out of the war, but what I'm getting from the White House these days is the overwhelming sense that they don't really care.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
Obama, as a kind of opponent-turned proponent-turned opponent, will probably hold more influence than McCain, who has been keeping up his constant tack about "liberation", and the "good of the Iraqi people". Then again, as other threads have illustrated, Obama's positions on a myriad number of issues are beginning to shift...so who knows, really?
A lot of very interesting questions here Christopher certainly requiring a lot of thought and as Amlord points out so many if's...
1. With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
Catch 22 for Bush here, if he doesn't comply with he request then he makes himself a liar and a hypocrite in the eyes of the world and certainly the Iraqi people which would only bolster the insurgency and make the Iraqi government appear a puppet government. If he does and things go wrong (even after his term of office comes to a close, which I assume it will have since a withdrawl from Iraq does not seem credible within the next 6-8 months) then the Iraq project has failed and Bush's legacy goes down the toilet with it.
2. If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
The only way out I can see is to push for a phased withdrawl with conditions for withdrawl with US troops initially moving back to airbases outside the hot zones, making patrols in flashpoints in conjuction with Iraqi soldiers while simultaneously reducing overall troop numbers. The next phase would be to withdraw completely with the exception of two or three locations inside Iraq and with a number of strike teams offshore aboard an aircraft carrier who would be available to help in crisis situations and be deployed as necessary. The third and final stage would be to draw back to bases in friendly nations (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc) outside Iraq's borders again providing a presence and support if necessary with only a few troops remaining inside Iraq to complete training of Iraq's armed forces. Doing this over a 2-3 year period would probably help save face while at the same time fulfilling roles and responsibilities that US and coalition troops have already been fulfilling and comply with the need for a timetable for withdrawl.
3. Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
In agreement with you here Akalae although I would say it also lets them off the hook a bit as well. It gives them a kind of plausible deniability here if anything goes wrong and with most people desperate to get the army out of Iraq it gives the Bush administration an out-clause that they didn't have before.
4. Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
I think this probably helps McCain more than anyone especially with his "100 year war" quote floating around and harms Obama as it makes the war less of an issue when it comes to attacking McCain OR it offers them both an opportunity to get the US out of Iraq and not have the issue hanging whoever's president for the next 4 years.
In a side note I would say the focus of the campaign certainly now seems to be returning to Afghanistan rather than Iraq and cleaning up underlying issues there although a withdrawl from Iraq may start to change that.
1. With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
Catch 22 for Bush here, if he doesn't comply with he request then he makes himself a liar and a hypocrite in the eyes of the world and certainly the Iraqi people which would only bolster the insurgency and make the Iraqi government appear a puppet government. If he does and things go wrong (even after his term of office comes to a close, which I assume it will have since a withdrawl from Iraq does not seem credible within the next 6-8 months) then the Iraq project has failed and Bush's legacy goes down the toilet with it.
2. If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
The only way out I can see is to push for a phased withdrawl with conditions for withdrawl with US troops initially moving back to airbases outside the hot zones, making patrols in flashpoints in conjuction with Iraqi soldiers while simultaneously reducing overall troop numbers. The next phase would be to withdraw completely with the exception of two or three locations inside Iraq and with a number of strike teams offshore aboard an aircraft carrier who would be available to help in crisis situations and be deployed as necessary. The third and final stage would be to draw back to bases in friendly nations (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc) outside Iraq's borders again providing a presence and support if necessary with only a few troops remaining inside Iraq to complete training of Iraq's armed forces. Doing this over a 2-3 year period would probably help save face while at the same time fulfilling roles and responsibilities that US and coalition troops have already been fulfilling and comply with the need for a timetable for withdrawl.
3. Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
QUOTE
Well, it opens them to ridicule, and possibly litigation, but it holds no threats to their plans. The planning is over. They've had their fun. They would, of course, be extremely happy if they could finagle another twelve months, or twelve years out of the war, but what I'm getting from the White House these days is the overwhelming sense that they don't really care.
In agreement with you here Akalae although I would say it also lets them off the hook a bit as well. It gives them a kind of plausible deniability here if anything goes wrong and with most people desperate to get the army out of Iraq it gives the Bush administration an out-clause that they didn't have before.
4. Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
I think this probably helps McCain more than anyone especially with his "100 year war" quote floating around and harms Obama as it makes the war less of an issue when it comes to attacking McCain OR it offers them both an opportunity to get the US out of Iraq and not have the issue hanging whoever's president for the next 4 years.
In a side note I would say the focus of the campaign certainly now seems to be returning to Afghanistan rather than Iraq and cleaning up underlying issues there although a withdrawl from Iraq may start to change that.
We obviously do not yet know the machinations behind this, but Newsweek is reporting that a report from DoD will call for more withdrawal and sooner.
Barack Obama is taking heat for hinting that he might refine his 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report will recommend an even steeper drawdown in less time, NEWSWEEK has learned. If adopted, the 300-page report by a defense analysis group at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., could transform the debate about Iraq in the presidential election.
Expected to be completed in about a month, it will recommend that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now.
Newsweek
I'll be anxious to read the report, which will be released in about a month.
Barack Obama is taking heat for hinting that he might refine his 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report will recommend an even steeper drawdown in less time, NEWSWEEK has learned. If adopted, the 300-page report by a defense analysis group at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., could transform the debate about Iraq in the presidential election.
Expected to be completed in about a month, it will recommend that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now.
Newsweek
I'll be anxious to read the report, which will be released in about a month.
I think Bush is more than willing to begin drawing down the number of troops in Iraq. What he won't do, and thank God for that, is agree to a timetable. There is no way to keep a timetable secret, and knowledge of one would be beneficial only to the enemy. As long as the NYT is around, nothing is sacred.
The drawdown under Bush or McCain will go like this. "Mr. President, we have successfully achieved goals A,B and C. Therefore we can afford to send XXX number of troops home". Even Obama is beginning to understand this.
The drawdown under Bush or McCain will go like this. "Mr. President, we have successfully achieved goals A,B and C. Therefore we can afford to send XXX number of troops home". Even Obama is beginning to understand this.
QUOTE(holdingtheline @ Jul 14 2008, 08:10 AM) 
There is no way to keep a timetable secret, and knowledge of one would be beneficial only to the enemy. As long as the NYT is around, nothing is sacred.
HTH, can you explain your theory behind this statement? Realistically, how would a timetable be beneficial to the insurgents?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 14 2008, 08:12 AM)
QUOTE(holdingtheline @ Jul 14 2008, 08:10 AM)
There is no way to keep a timetable secret, and knowledge of one would be beneficial only to the enemy. As long as the NYT is around, nothing is sacred.
HTH, can you explain your theory behind this statement? Realistically, how would a timetable be beneficial to the insurgents?
I now tend to agree with DTOM's position here. Although I was initially against setting a timetable, I don't really see what harm it would do anymore, especially from the insurgents. What would they really do differently if they had such information? Not much, I think. My only remaining concern is that a timetable doesn't take into consideration achievement of objectives as a condition based withdrawal would. However, I also think setting a timetable would probably make achievement of those objectives more likely...nothing like necessity to spur action. So, overall, I think a timetable might be the best solution.
A couple of interesting points to note. First, Bush is considering speeding up the withdrawal of troops anyway, with some being redeployed to Afghanistan. Second, talks with Iran setting up the SOFA agreement have broken down, with no additional talks scheduled until the next President is in power. Discussions are now focused on temporary agreements extending the UN's mandate past the end of the year.
With the meme from the Right and the Bush administration about the success of the Surge if Iraq demands a serious time table do they have any alternatives even if they believe Iraq unable to handle its own security?Can Bush refuse a clear request from Iraq's government for timetables even if the situation is not considered optimal after declaring over and over he refuses to do time tables?
Bush can stall but I doubt he push for a flat out refusal to comply by citing American interests. The UN loses alot of power if it must take action against a veto wielding member. As cliche as it sounds this is game of chicken, and the results will either entail having the UN back down or set a precedent by taking action against a founding member. Both sides will lose face.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
They have none. The interests of the any foreign power are projections onto another society. They can either comply or be punted out of international organizations and be treated as a rogue country. Chomski would say something like "invading armies have no rights, only obligations." I think he is right.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Not as much as one might think. The base in Qatar is pretty large. I'm pretty sure even if they began leaving tommorrow, there could be enough creative justifying that there will be a prescence of some sort either in Kuwait or in one of the four large megabases.
Politically it is a defeat and a blow to the theatrical war on terror. An obvious loss of confidence in the ability of American politicians to perceive threat from fiction, and a lingering suspicion that will plague future presidents in the years to come.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
Everytime the subject of timetables is brought up we've seen parallel articles espousing concern Bush will go out and strike a third country. Or in lib talk, fears of a democratic presidency will force Bush to take action outside what the senate and the joint chiefs might agree to on. The rumour is the vice president does not have faith in future leaders to act as aggressively as they have so they must capitalize on what's left of their window of opportunity.
Bush can stall but I doubt he push for a flat out refusal to comply by citing American interests. The UN loses alot of power if it must take action against a veto wielding member. As cliche as it sounds this is game of chicken, and the results will either entail having the UN back down or set a precedent by taking action against a founding member. Both sides will lose face.
If the Iraqi government begins to push for US Troop withdrawals before the safety and security of Iraq are considered reached, What options does the Bush administration have?
They have none. The interests of the any foreign power are projections onto another society. They can either comply or be punted out of international organizations and be treated as a rogue country. Chomski would say something like "invading armies have no rights, only obligations." I think he is right.
Is this a serious threat to the goals of the Bush administration in regards to its statements about when we can leave Iraq and our plans to try and have American Troops remain in Iraq indefinitely?
Not as much as one might think. The base in Qatar is pretty large. I'm pretty sure even if they began leaving tommorrow, there could be enough creative justifying that there will be a prescence of some sort either in Kuwait or in one of the four large megabases.
Politically it is a defeat and a blow to the theatrical war on terror. An obvious loss of confidence in the ability of American politicians to perceive threat from fiction, and a lingering suspicion that will plague future presidents in the years to come.
Who does a request for timetables --if the demand is clearly expected by Maliki and the Iraqi government -- benefit and who does it harm in regards to the nominees in the race for POTUS?
Everytime the subject of timetables is brought up we've seen parallel articles espousing concern Bush will go out and strike a third country. Or in lib talk, fears of a democratic presidency will force Bush to take action outside what the senate and the joint chiefs might agree to on. The rumour is the vice president does not have faith in future leaders to act as aggressively as they have so they must capitalize on what's left of their window of opportunity.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.