Iraq wants timetable for withdrawal of US forces

[Skybird]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...98w8wD91PC05O0

Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.
It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush.
He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

The White House said it did not believe al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

Sounds as if there is a communiction problem then.

[kurtz]

Sounds like a golden oppurtunity to get out.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Here's a timetable for them;

We'll leave when you quit blowing each other up and learn how to run a country without genocide and oppression.

[Platapus]

This will be a good test on exactly how much sovereignty we are giving to the Iraqi government.

Will we "allow" the Iraqi government to dictate when we leave?

Personally I think having the Iraqi government tell us to leave is the only way we (US) can salvage this goat-rope.

We could leave with honour (or as much as possible) and when the spam hits the fan we can say, "hey, we were told to leave."

Please al-Maliki, tell us to go home. Pretty please?????

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Here's a timetable for them;

We'll leave when you quit blowing each other up and learn how to run a country without genocide and oppression.

It's a different society with a different historical context. Genocide and oppression is something as regular to them as elections to us Americans. I don't approve of it, but we're not going to be the ones to fix it. We have pissed away whatever good will we had in the Middle East, and for a long time whatever we do over there will be tainted in the eyes of its peoples.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Platapus

This will be a good test on exactly how much sovereignty we are giving to the Iraqi government.

Will we "allow" the Iraqi government to dictate when we leave?

Personally I think having the Iraqi government tell us to leave is the only way we (US) can salvage this goat-rope.

We could leave with honour (or as much as possible) and when the spam hits the fan we can say, "hey, we were told to leave."

Please al-Maliki, tell us to go home. Pretty please?????

Agree. This could be a godsend. If they tell us straight up to leave we had better damn well do it.

PD

[Enigma]

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice,’’ the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say leave, we would leave." -G.W Bush.

Well, Mr. President?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Enigma

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice,’’ the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say leave, we would leave." -G.W Bush.

Well, Mr. President?

First we need to finalize some oil deals and then we will leave

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Hakahura

Good lets get the ******* out of there.

Yeah lets free up some resources, Iran is already waiting

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

It's a different society with a different historical context. Genocide and oppression is something as regular to them as elections to us Americans. I don't approve of it, but we're not going to be the ones to fix it. We have pissed away whatever good will we had in the Middle East, and for a long time whatever we do over there will be tainted in the eyes of its peoples.

PD

I completely agree. But try explaining that to poorly educated Americans who expect to see some kind of result from this fiasco. Not that a stable and democratic Iraq would be a bad thing, far from it.
At this point I really can't form a solid opinion. On the one hand, try meeting those people and sharing their hope of building a country like the ones we enjoy in the western world. To them it's a whole new frontier, a future they could never have hoped for.
On the other hand, this war is terribly mismanaged. Coalition troops get killed for one primary reason. Idiot officers fighting the last war.
Speaking from the perspective of a U.S. Marine, I don't know wtf they were thinking. Perhaps some of our British friends or our other allies have troops that are well-versed in garrison operations and civil pacification. That sure as hell is not us. I would love to meet the *&$^*&($ that decided "Hey let's send naval assault infantry into an ideologically-motivated warzone. After all, if a Marine isn't sensitive, who is?"
I'm going to go out on a limb here. Flame me if you please I will not complain.
Many of our troops are not heroes. I'm not. Many of them are a$$holes that make people suffer or die for no reason. During my tours I had the misfortune of seeing 3 innocent, completely harmless people killed for very little reason because of overzealous Marines. In my cowardice I did not request mast to report them as they, however wrong they were, meant more to me than any friends I have ever had.
On the part of the troops this is understandable. From day 1 in boot camp we are told to kill. We are told it is right. We are told that duty exonerates us from responsibility. That is good training if you are being prepared to die on a beach somewhere. But it is poor training for someone who is expected to act as a stabilizing force in a foreign region beset by ideological conflict.
Do I believe Iraq had WMD's? Undoubtedly.
Do I believe they were a threat to us? No.
Do I believe this war had hidden economic and political motivations? Of course. Virtually all wars do. Remember that before you volunteer to fight because someone else tells you someone is evil.
Nonetheless, now that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is our responsibility to help rebuild, although a great deal more public oversight is required. Who are we to invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, and then just leave it like that?

In my view the first step is admitting we made a mistake. I hope our British friends will acknowledge they did as well. Not by following us into this war, which I admire them for, but for creating this blasted country to begin with. Iraq is not a nation. It was created by Winston Churchill. If you wish to learn the source of my opinion you can find it in a book called "Churchill's Folly". The author's name escpaes me but I'm sure it would be easy to find on amazon.

All that being said I am just as much at fault as anyone for the current situation. I was one of those Americans who subscribed to the "kick their a$$ and take their gas!" philosophy. I am older and somewhat less stupid now and I see that was wrong.

The entire Middle East and even Islamic culture as a whole has been a thorn in the side of the West for over a thousand years (not counting classical civilizations). Despite this, militant address of the situation will result only in two possible outcomes; subjugation or genocide. Perhaps we should be relying on the resourcefulness of our own Iraqi immigrants and knowledge of Middle Eastern culture to quell this problem.

Finally, I would like to say that I can sympathize with those who are furious at Islamic extremists (fundamentalists, whatever. The people who blow stuff up)
Despite how tolerant some of us may want to be there will always be some A-hole who just doesn't care and wants to mess stuff up. Generally these people are just stupid, and it is not always their fault. Even those who lead them may be fools. But the key to being a fool is to not realize that you are one. Every effort should be made to reach these people and begin a dialogue (once again, only because we are there already) failing that, proper, well planned military action may be our only recourse.

All this blab for a non-answer My solution would be to divide Iraq into three parts. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shiites (sp?)
A minimal multinational force would provide border security until more stabiity has been realized.
PD I totally agree wit your view that we are dealing with a different culture here and our methods of dealing with them may be ineffective because we are not taking into account thousands of years of culture and history. My previous post was a bit of a jest, but now you have lured me in to a full-fledged lecture.
Once again this is only my opinion and I would welcome any dissent, no matter how brusque. It's the only way I'll learn.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by Enigma

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice,’’ the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say leave, we would leave." -G.W Bush.

Well, Mr. President?

We're waiting......

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Once again this is only my opinion and I would welcome any dissent, no matter how brusque. It's the only way I'll learn.

I'm no expert, but it all reads pretty much like what I've thought all along. I never thought the war was wrong - I just always thought it was a mistake. Find the guys who set the thing up, kill them or capture them, and go home. It's the only way to do things and still be right.

[UnderseaLcpl]

As always, the voice of wisdom Sailor Steve.

Yet your solution provides us with another impasse. How can one predict the ramifications of retaliating against an extremist movement? What caused this hatred of our country/culture to begin with? As passionate as I am in my conviction that the war/occupation is being executed poorly, what is the real road to peace here?
Just killing/capturing the bad guys in a foreign nation is a little harder than it sounds. Consider their objections to foreign involvement with their affairs or even support for the extremists' actions. What if some foreign country occupied your nation and set up a military establishment to combat the KKK or whatever? As noble as their purpose may be it is bound to breed some friction. Then imagine you are in a country where you are told from childhood that this interfering nation is despicable and a threat.

The whole situation seems a bit beyond my ability to understand. On the one hand, we have the freedom of a nation at stake. On the other hand, we encroach upon that freedom by forcing two centuries' worth of democracy into a culture that has known two millenia of theocracy and/or totalitarianism. And to do it they have to suffer more casualties then we do.

Once again I have taken up a bunch of space to say nothing. This situation is beyond my limited ability to offer a reasonable perspective.

edit-fixed punkshooashun

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Well, Mr. President?

There's a pretty big difference between calling for negotiations on a timetable and being asked to leave outright.

[Enigma]

There's also a pretty big difference between calling for negotions for a timetable and "We will not set a time table". Which brings us right back to the same point.

funny how that works....