Bush Agrees to Time Horizon on Iraq Troop Cuts

[John317]

Great News-- it means the US and Iraqi goals are being met and that the end of America's direct involvement in fighting there is coming within sight:

Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

19 minutes ago

Original Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - President Bush has agreed to set a "general time horizon" for deeper U.S. troop cuts in Iraq, the White House said Friday, a dramatic shift from his once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadlines or timetables.

The announcement put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home. It also could complicate the presidential campaign arguments of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who have staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular war.

What's changed? The sharp reduction in violence in Iraq — to the lowest level in four years — has made the country's leaders increasingly confident and more assertive about its sovereignty, giving rise to demands for a specific plan for American forces to leave.

Iraq has leverage because the White House is struggling to salvage negotiations for a long-term agreement covering U.S. military operations there. The White House said its goal is to conclude that deal by the end of this month.

Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked about the stalled negotiations during a secure video conference on Thursday, agreeing "on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible," a White House statement said.

The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said.

Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.

The White House statement was intentionally vague and did not specify what kind of timelines were envisioned. That allows Iraqi officials, who are facing elections in the fall, to argue they are not beholden to Washington or willing to tolerate a permanent military presence in Iraq. For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework for keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

"The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be."

As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months. By talking about a "time horizion," Bush appeared at odds with McCain and could make his own GOP administration a tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs.

Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has led House hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said the "time horizon" cited by the White House was "very vague and nebulous." He also said the agreement taking shape seemed "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated."

Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that condition could take years to meet. Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said this month that Baghdad would not accept any security deal unless it contained specific dates for U.S. troop withdrawals.

So far, the United States has handed control of 10 of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials. "Obviously, if Iraqis are assuming more missions, then you need less American troops," Johndroe said.

The White House sought to make a distinction between talking with Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to force cutbacks.

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who was traveling with Bush in Tucson, Ariz.

"All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that," Stanzel said. "We are making progress on the security situation. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months."

A major troop buildup ordered by Bush in January 2007 has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in last year, left the country. There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions this fall because security has improved.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible — it has not, and it is not," Mullen said. "But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said officials are looking for ways to send additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year.

[carolaa]

That will be good news if it actually happens. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so I'm not holding my breath. But it's a good sign.

I'm hoping we can get those contractors and mercenaries out, as well.

Interesting, the Pentagon is demanding that Halliburton/KBR get over there and inspect their electrical work because of all the soldiers getting electrocuted. That's what we can expect when the contract work goes to political cronies.

[John317]

All this is based on the assumption and condition that things continue to go as well as they have since the surge began.

Remember that even Obama is saying that if the terrorists establish themselves in Iraq again after we leave, he would be prepared as president to send American troops back in.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Interesting, the Pentagon is demanding that Halliburton/KBR get over there and inspect their electrical work because of all the soldiers getting electrocuted. That's what we can expect when the contract work goes to political cronies.

Sounds more like sabotage than poor workmanship. I don't know why anyone would automatically assume the worst about their fellow Americans.

[carolaa]

You could very well be right about that. I just know it's a big temptation to cut corners when you're in another country that might not have building codes like they do here in the U.S. Especially if contractors are immune from prosecution. And who knew we'd be using the buildings this long?!

[Dr. Shane]

When I was in the Army I built roads and bridges in Panama. There was a Quality Control officer that made all of our lives miserable. I don't think corners get cut just because someone is working overseas.

[carolaa]

When I was in the Army I built roads and bridges in Panama. There was a Quality Control officer that made all of our lives miserable. I don't think corners get cut just because someone is working overseas.

Again...not saying you are wrong, but I do know that bribes and corruption are in the U.S., and I suspect they work even better in some other countries.

Since living in Texas, I never cease to be amazed at the shoddy work that takes place, and the attempts to circumvent codes. I've never seen anything like it, but I've heard there are areas in the Northeast U.S. that are at least as bad. I'm sure there are several reasons for this, but my point is that it happens, and I would guess that it happens overseas even more.

[Dr. Shane]

Shoddy work in Texas is not due to corruption. It is due to the lack of skilled labor in the workforce. The economy has been growing faster than the workforce can keep up with it. There is corruption, especially in the part I live in but I have never heard of inspectors being involved in it. The corruption I am aware of is in the bidding process and getting the process of getting payment for work done. Most projects in the US are really overdesigned so even "shoddy" work is better than what is found in most other countries.

[carolaa]

I will just add that the Conference has addressed this problem within the last couple of years by adding staff and increasing regulations to take care of the many building projects going on. Apparently, they got tired of being a party to all the lawsuits where things weren't built to code. Or maybe it was the insurance company that insisted they do something, I'm not sure. Anyway, there are a lot more hoops now, for better or worse.

[carolaa]

Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

19 minutes ago

Original Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months.

Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has led House hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said the "time horizon" cited by the White House was "very vague and nebulous." He also said the agreement taking shape seemed "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated."

From today's news, it appears that the Iraq government is thinking along the lines of Obama's timetable.

I have to chuckle every time I see that term "time horizon." Yes, it's so purposely nebulous as to be quite funny, imo.

[Dr. Shane]

So does anyone think the media will give credit to Obama for victory? I can see that happening. After the surge that Obama opposed was successful, he takes office, pulls the troops out and takes credit for victory.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Apparently, they got tired of being a party to all the lawsuits where things weren't built to code.

Most of the "shoddy" work I see isn't code issues. I think most buildings are built to code in Texas. The "code" we are talking about is the IBC (International Building Code) which is not enforced by many governments in many countries. When an American company builds a factory overseas they normally will hire an independent inspector to enforce the IBC because the local governments do not. A lot of the shoddy work is poor finishes, doors hung crooked, cabinet drawers that stick, spotty painting, flaking plaster, footprints in concrete work, toilets improperly spaced from the wall, ponding water in parking lots, leaking roofs, leaking pipes, poorly caulked control joints, improperly installed windows.

In contrast, code violations are such things like lack of fire walls, insufficient reinforcement in the foundation, lack of lintels over window and door openings, lack of grounding on electrical service, no hot water in designated areas, improper span of joists, equipment too heavy on roof, improper sewer service, wires too small for electrical service, insufficient reinforcement in walls, etc. These are basically life safety issues. I have seen very few life safety issues being compromised in Texas.

[John317]

So does anyone think the media will give credit to Obama for victory? I can see that happening. After the surge that Obama opposed was successful, he takes office, pulls the troops out and takes credit for victory.

I'd say highly likely. I think he ought to at least acknowledge that the surge was successful and that he was wrong about it. If he did that, I would certainly have greater respect for him and know that he means it when he says he is a different kind of politician.