Iraq Wants Time Table

[Dr. Shane]

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable for US troops

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. It came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal...

Some type of agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability, and Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

[text taken from link]

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know if there could be any bigger indicator of success in Iraq than the new government telling us it is time for us to go home.

[John317]

I agree. I think it's a great sign.

[carolaa]

That's great. I will be interested to see if we will actually do it. I don't believe we will ever pull out entirely like they want us to, but I would love to be proved wrong.

[John317]

Neither the Iraqis nor the Americans are saying that all American troops should or will leave. There will be enough left to help train Iraqi troops and police, etc. But by the middle of 2009, virtually all of the security work will be done by Iraqis. That will be a wonderful thing to do see.

Obama has said that if elected, and if he finds that the terrorists have established themselves in Iraq, he would send American troops back in. Hope that never happens. It seems to me it would be better to keep an American presence in there of sufficient strength to prevent the terrorists from doing that in the first place, rather like we did in Europe and Korea.

[carolaa]

Neither the Iraqis nor the Americans are saying that all American troops should or will leave.

"The goal is to end the presence [of foreign troops]," al-Maliki said.

[fccool]

Terrorism is a rogue ideology... you can't fight ideas with guns. That will only aggravate these. I think if Politicians were so concerned about the security, they would at least secure borders. Bit mentioning the rogue states like North Korea who do have nukes... but beyond reproach now because they do have nukes and would not hesitate to use them if feel threatened.

+ US is about to get into another cold war with Russia over the shield they are planning to build. Do they really consider Russia to be a threat?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Neither the Iraqis nor the Americans are saying that all American troops should or will leave.

"The goal is to end the presence [of foreign troops]," al-Maliki said.

Of course that's the eventual goal but it's not going to happen overnight. Both sides are working toward that goal. That's what the last 6 years have been all about. We've always wanted that to happen. The problem was that the Democrats have said we needed to leave before the job was completed. Now, fortunately, it looks like we can do it the right way.

[carolaa]

If that was the eventual goal, then why has Bush been trying all summer to get an agreement for permanent bases in Iraq? (Which, according to today's news, it looks like he has failed to do and has given up on the idea.) No, the U.S. goal is to protect it's "interests," and part of that was to have a permanent presence in Iraq.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories and when it comes to Iraq, there are more conspiracy theories out there then stars in the sky.

[carolaa]

Was someone talking about a conspiracy theory?

[fccool]

Shane this is not a conspiracy theory . This is an openly know, and talked about fact in Pentagon.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm

This is written by one of the top Pentagon analysts/strategists... not a conspiracy... a plan to have a permanent residence in Middle East to protect US and global interests. Pentagon is not hiding anything and it's not a conspiracy theory... Just some excerpts:

In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the U.S. national-security establishment a huge favor by pulling us back from the abstract planning of future high-tech wars against “near peers” into the here-and-now threats to global order. By doing so, the dividing lines between Core and Gap were highlighted, and more important, the nature of the threat environment was thrown into stark relief.

Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure products of the Gap—in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and which states they would like to take “off line” from globalization and return to some seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population, especially Saudi Arabia).

If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country’s potential to warrant a U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity. There is a good reason why Al Qaeda was based first in Sudan and then later in Afghanistan: These are two of the most disconnected countries in the world. Look at the other places U.S. Special Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on: northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking about the ends of the earth as far as globalization is concerned.

..............

The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, “Let’s get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won’t have to deal with those people.” The most naïve assumption underlying that dream is that reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply will those people away.

The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but within them. What is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of the population—especially for the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better political futures, thanks to younger leaders who see the inevitability of such change. Iran is likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to come along—if he has not already.

.............

[John317]

If that was the eventual goal, then why has Bush been trying all summer to get an agreement for permanent bases in Iraq? (Which, according to today's news, it looks like he has failed to do and has given up on the idea.) No, the U.S. goal is to protect it's "interests," and part of that was to have a permanent presence in Iraq.

Is there anything wrong with the United States trying to get an agreement for a permanant base in Iraq if we can do it?

The US has many agreements with countries for military purposes. Agreements to have a base are totally separate issues from having combat troops in a country fighting battles for its government. That is what we are doing now. Hopefully that is what is coming to an end.

[fccool]

Agreements you mean like a 1st grader agrees to give up lunch money to a bully

"The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but within them....."

I guess part of the "fairness" of it all is putting ourselves in other nation's shoes and seeing how many foreign military bases are here?

[Dr. Shane]

The Bush Administration's position from the beginning is that we would pull troops out when the new Iraq government was secure and wanted us to leave. If the new Iraq government wants us to have bases in the country I am sure we will do that like we have or have had in Japan, Philippians, South Korea, Spain, Italy, Germany and Panama. However I have read where the construction of our facilities in Iraq have been specifically done in a way to appear temporary so that the people there do not start to believe we are there to stay.

The US doesn't need bases in another country to protect our interests. Our submarines and air craft carriers are themselves mobile bases equipped with fighters, bombers, artillery cannons and missiles (including those with nuclear capacity).

[fccool]

Shane, all of the countries you've named were at war with US at some point of time and lost, just like the case of Iraq. Once again, the "agreement" was reached by means of pressure and not invitation. No sane country would want foreign troops to build bases on their soil. US certainly does not.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

If that was the eventual goal, then why has Bush been trying all summer to get an agreement for permanent bases in Iraq? (Which, according to today's news, it looks like he has failed to do and has given up on the idea.) No, the U.S. goal is to protect it's "interests," and part of that was to have a permanent presence in Iraq.

Is there anything wrong with the United States trying to get an agreement for a permanant base in Iraq if we can do it?

I was responding to your statement that both sides are working toward the eventual goal of ending the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, which is not true (until today, perhaps).

Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to do get an agreement, as long as both sides want it and we aren't bullying them into something. I wasn't disputing that.

[carolaa]

I guess part of the "fairness" of it all is putting ourselves in other nation's shoes and seeing how many foreign military bases are here?

Absolutely. I've thought that very thing for a long time. It tells me how arrogant we are to think we need to have a footprint all over the world. It would be different if we allowed it to be reciprocal, but I doubt that ever enters people's minds.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Is there anything wrong with the United States trying to get an agreement for a permanant base in Iraq if we can do it? [/quote']

I was responding to your statement that both sides are working toward the eventual goal of ending the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, which is not true (until today, perhaps).

Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to do get an agreement, as long as both sides want it and we aren't bullying them into something. I wasn't disputing that.

The United States has always said that we will leave if the Iraqis decide that they want us out. That was said as far back as 2003. It is up to the Iraqi government. We have never had designs to stay if they want us out.

[carolaa]

The Bush Administration's position from the beginning is that we would pull troops out when the new Iraq government was secure and wanted us to leave. ...I have read where the construction of our facilities in Iraq have been specifically done in a way to appear temporary so that the people there do not start to believe we are there to stay.

The US doesn't need bases in another country to protect our interests. Our submarines and air craft carriers are themselves mobile bases equipped with fighters, bombers, artillery cannons and missiles (including those with nuclear capacity).

Bush has been negotiating all summer for "up to 50" *permanent* bases in Iraq (among other things). Iraq even said they would be more willing to agree to some of his suggestions IF he could show that they were temporary in nature.

Maybe what you read was referring to the Green Zone and other areas where we do have temporary quarters set up. ?

So why are we putting a shield in Czechoslavakia if our "mobile bases" are adequate? Methinks we are trying to dominate the world.

[Bravus]

Facetiously: Yep, when I'm staying over with friends and they ask very firmly for a timetable for when I'm leaving, I just *know* they're glad I came.

[carolaa]

US is about to get into another cold war with Russia over the shield they are planning to build. Do they really consider Russia to be a threat?

Maybe this is the threat we see from Russia:

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2008/06/200862371431417772.html

[fccool]

If that's the case than anyone's a threat , China being the largest one.

[carolaa]

Oh, yes! I guess their opinion is that Russia would be the most likely at the moment to take that step. I do wonder whether our debt situation with China would be a motive (or not) for them to dump the dollar. We do seem pretty precarious.

[Bravus]

I heard a pretty convincing illustration that, since China does own so much US debt, killing the US dollar would be basically suicidal for their own economy. It's a kind of financial Mutually Assured Destruction...