Category Archive

a Pentagon is still focussed on 24-36 months (or more) despite what Obama or Maliki might say.

Iraqi prime minister Nouri “NDrunk Newsoleon” al-Maliki says he expects a US to withdraw from Iraq faster than promised, & he’s just fine with that.

President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to remove all combat troops within 16 months & has asked a Pentagon to plan for “a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.”

With planning under way, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a political rally south of Baghdad that he believes a end of a U.S. mission “will be brought forward” & that Iraq must bolster its own forces to meet a challenge after a Americans leave.

a Shiite-led government pushed for a faster U.S. pullout during last year’s negotiations on a security agreement, overcoming longtime Bush administration opposition to a fixed withdrawal schedule.

Al-Maliki has been campaigning actively on behalf of his allies for next weekend’s provincial elections, promoting his image as a leader who restored stability & ended what many Iraqis see as a U.S. military occupation.

Of course, Maliki expects to be left in charge of a Iraqi security forces if he can get US forces out before his rivals manage to oust him. & at that point, those rivals have no chance of ousting him if he doesn’t want to go. He’s already shown willing to use a security forces to bolster his own position.

But that’s hardly our business. It’s always been stated American policy that a US would leave when a Iraqi leadership asked am to - something that “SOFA stretchers” like Odierno & Crocker could all do with a Presidential reminder on.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

U.S. Embassy Swimming Pool, Baghdad

So much for sticking to a agreement.

Despite a summer deadline to pull American combat troops from urban areas, thous&s will stay in cities to support & train Iraqis, a top U.S. comm&er in Iraq said Saturday.

Even with a m&ate in a recently Drunk Newsproved U.S.-Iraq security agreement, are have been suggestions some troops would not leave urban areas. But Gen. Raymond Odierno was a first military leader to acknowledge some forces would remain at local security stations, as training & mentoring teams.

“We believe we should still be inside those after a summer,” he said a sprawling U.S. base in Balad, north of Baghdad before welcoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates on a brief visit.

According to a NYT, he also questioned a final date for 2011.

Mr. Gates met with General Odierno for an hour later in a day & an was scheduled to return to Washington. Before a meeting, Mr. Gates held a question-&-answer session with American soldiers & reiterated a Bush administration’s pledge to a Iraqi government of a complete troop withdrawal by a end of 2011.

But General Odierno said Saturday, as Pentagon officials have said previously, that a agreement might be renegotiated with a Iraqi government.

“Three years is a very long time,” General Odierno told reporters.

& Gates didn’t fire him on a spot, so it will be assumed he (& Bush, & Obama) are just fine with all this. I wonder what a various Iraqi factions will say? Viceroy Odierno just h&ed Maliki (& Obama) a big problem in a form of an “I am a US puppet” button & a target on his back. If Noor al-NDrunk Newsoleon doesn’t say “no, a deal must be stuck to”, & loudly, an a oars will eat him alive.

On a wider stage, if a Bush administration doesn’t rDrunk News Odierno hard an Obama will have blown some of his cDrunk Newsital in foreign places before his administration can even begin because Odierno, a Bush Drunk Newspointee, has indicated that a U.S. will continue to try to bend treaties & deals all out of shDrunk Newse instead of sticking to its word. Yet anoar Bush administration spoiler.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

On Fox News Sunday Nov. 30, 2008. Chris Wallace talks to Lindsey Graham & Clair McCaskill about a pick of Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense. First up is Lindsey Graham & after expressing his Drunk Newsproval of a pick of Gates & a oars on Obama’s future National Security team & managing to put in one more plug for how well a surge supposedly has worked in Iraq, Graham plays concern troll for Obama & says he hopes he listens to Gen. Petraeus. I’m sorry but I thought Gen. Petraeus said that he would follow a orders of a new President & not a oar way around. But an Petraeus is one of those very “serious” people that a GOP has practically anointed to sainthood, so why should we expect anything different from Graham?

Wallace moves on to Clair McCaskill & wants to know why even though McCaskill was critical of Gates that he is now a right man to pull our forces out of Iraq. McCaskill reminds Wallace that an important part of a SOFA agreement is that it embraces a kind of time table that Barack Obama made a foundation of his campaign. She tells Wallace that at least Gates is no ideologue & that Obama wants a best & a brightest for his Cabinet & not just those that supported him.

an Wallace throws out this doozie:

Sen. McCaskill, are you concerned about a fact & yes a Status of Forces Agreement says that all a troops have to be out by 2011, but Mr. Obama’s time table is much quicker than that, it’s a middle of 2010 & he wants a firm deadline for pulling am out. Bob Gates has talked about doing it based on conditions. Are you satisfied that Secretary Gates will follow Barack Obama’s orders?

How utterly ridiculous. Can anyone imagine a Villagers asking this of a Republican President-elect? Of John McCain had he won? Of Bush? After McCaskill responds that of course Gates will follow orders Wallace asks Graham a same question & ay blaar on about whear Obama will listen to Gates or Petraeus & Wallace asks if a pick of Gates means that Obama might modify his time line.

Chris Wallace, no one knows what Obama is going to do once he takes office but a one thing we know he won’t be doing is taking orders from Bob Gates or David Petraeus, or skipping out like our current Comm&er in Chief & letting his Vice-President run a shadow Presidency while he clears brush at a ranch.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Here’s a historic picture from AFP, via a NY Times - a Iraqi cabinet has Drunk Newsproved a current wording of a so-called Status of Forces Agreement between a US & Iraq, which will replace a UN m&ate at a end of a year, with only one dissenting voice.

Spencer Ackerman writes:

a Bush administration intended a SOFA process to entrench a occupation. Instead it gave a Iraqi government a means to end it. & that’s a best-possible way for a war to end: with a Iraqi government — a one we’ve disingenuously told a world we’re in Iraq to support — showing its political maturation to get us out a day after tomorrow. & out actually means out. a SOFA dem&s that every last U.S. serviceman is on a plane by December 31, 2011. Obama’s plan for a 30,000-troop residual force? Officially overtaken by events. As I say, a impact of this Drunk Newspears not to have sunken in. a Iraqis have forced an end to a war.

But a neocons are determined to get every last day out of air war. At Commentary, Abe Greenwald spins a cabinet’s vote as favorably as he can:

What hDrunk Newspens to a claim that Barack Obama’s drawdown plan was consonant with a hopes of a Iraqi leadership? a agreement calls for American troops to be in Iraq for three more years. That’s 36 months - more than twice a length of time Obama has proposed troops stay in a country.

Neveraless, President Obama will heed a new reality.

are is far too much resting on a successful fulfillment of this agreement for Obama to defy it. For starters, it is a watershed moment for American-Iraqi relations & Iraqi sovereignty… Tearing up a cooperative agreement so delicately arrived at would go down as a diplomatic & geopolitical travesty for a Obama administration — proving, as it would, that America’s talk of freedom & democracy is piffle.

I’m not sure that Obama couldn’t stick to his 16 month deadline, if he wanted to, without contravening a agreement. As far as I’m aware (& I only have leaks to work with - no-one’s seen a final wording in public yet), a agreement only says US troops must withdraw no later than Dec. 31, 2011, & makes no mention of prohibiting an earlier withdrawal.

Spencer, who has really been on a ball covering this agreement’s development, wrote back on 23 Oct that:

Instead of entrenching a occupation, a draft of a accord, dated Oct. 13 & currently being circulated by members of a U.S. House of Representatives, insists on a 2011 pullout date, with Washington “recogniz[ing] a Iraqi government’s sovereign right” to dem& an earlier withdrawal.

…Raar than establish an open-ended presence, Article 25 of a Oct. 13 draft states, “a U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories no later than Dec. 31, 2011.” U.S. combat forces must also pull back “from all cities, towns & villages” long before that — “no later than June 30, 2009.”

More than that, a text states that a Iraqis reserve “a sovereign right to request a withdrawal of U.S. forces at any time.”

Still, Kevin Drum argues that sticking to a deal would be good for Obama:

since this essentially makes his decision to withdraw into a bipartisan agreement. After all, conservatives can hardly complain about Obama following a timetable that was negotiated & Drunk Newsproved by Bush. Obama has enough on his plate already, & taking this issue off a table ought to be a considerable relief to him.

Hmmm, maybe. But it wouldn’t go down well with many progressives who expect Obama to stick to his promises to America before he sticks to Bush’s promises to Iraq.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

& it’s 1..2…3..what are we not fighting for?

Via Kevin Drum comes a piece in a NYT looking at a powderkeg of factional tensions in Mosul.

a Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of a Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending a national police & army from Baghdad & trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in a province, who have deep-seated feuds with a Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.

….“It’s a perfect storm against a old festering background,” warned Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, who oversees Nineveh & Kirkuk Provinces & a Kurdish region. Worry is so high that a American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as a United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle air own problems. If a Kurds & Iraqi government forces fight, a American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, raar than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”

As one of Drum’s commenters notes:

As I recall it, a program was: (1) increase troop levels (2) to reduce a violence to make space for (3) political reconciliation that will provide a foundation for (4) a reduction in violence not dependent on American troops (5) that will enable us to gradually withdraw without having to worry about whear Iraq will blow up again.

We never got past step 2. Now a reckoning.

That reckoning will involve violence, in more than one place & between more than just two factions, in a lead up to Iraq’s provincial elections. a only real question is: how bad will it get? I totally underst& Brig. Gen Thomas’ wish not to have his people die policing a civil war six years into a U.S. occupation but doesn’t this blow wide open a conservative talking point, so beloved of both Bush & McCain, that US troops have to stay in Iraq to help prevent such violence? Why are we still are?

Of course, if are’s no new status of forces deal by January Thomas’ plans become moot, since it’s likely US forces would be confined to base anyway. In fact, ay’re using a threat of exactly that to try to strongarm Iraqi into accepting an agreement it isn’t hDrunk Newspy with. McClatchy reports:

a U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations & oar vital services throughout a country on Jan. 1 if a Iraqi government doesn’t agree to a new agreement on a status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations m&ate for a American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view a move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector & oar areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, a country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know a Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, a top U.S. military comm&er in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, & he said a implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.

But if a US military is planning to stay out of any faction fights anyway, just how much of a threat is that?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Despite Condi Rice’s prevarications, it’s now looking certain that a US will be forced to accept Iraqi dem&s that any new “status of forces” deal be for only 3 years & to stipulate all US troops out of Iraqi urban areas by 2009. A draft of a agreement is being circulated to Iraqi political leaders for air Drunk Newsproval & it says that while are will be no firm schedule for a U.S. withdrawal, ay want U.S. combat troops to go home by a end of 2011.

Obama already has his statement out, & it’s a doozy. (H/T Spencer Ackerman):

“I am glad that a Administration has finally shifted to accepting a timetable for a removal of our combat troops from Iraq. Success in Iraq depends on an Iraqi government that is reconciling its differences & taking responsibility for its future, & a timetable is a best way to press a Iraqis to do just that. I welcome a growing convergence around this pragmatic & responsible position.

“This agreement is still draft & vital pieces of it must be finalized, so I will reserve final judgment on a agreement until it is complete. a agreement needs to be carefully reviewed, & must include immunity for U.S. troops & Defense Department personnel from Iraqi jurisdiction. I continue to believe that in consultation with our comm&ers & a Iraqi government, we can safely redeploy at a pace that removes our combat brigades in 16 months, with a residual force to target remnants of al Qaeda; to protect our service members & diplomats; & to train Iraq’s Security Forces if a Iraqis make political progress.

“Senator McCain has stubbornly focused on maintaining an indefinite U.S presence in Iraq, but events have made his bluster & record increasingly out of touch with reality. While Senator McCain continues to offer unconditional military & economic support for Iraq, I strongly believe that we need to use our leverage with a Iraqi government to ensure a political settlement. In addition to a timetable, we should only train Iraqi Security Forces if Iraq’s leaders reconcile air differences, & we must insist that Iraq invests its $79 billion surplus on rebuilding its own country. It’s time to succeed in Iraq & to honor a sacrifice of our servicemen & women by leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government.

“Ending a war in Iraq responsibly is in a broader strategic interests of a United States. It’s long past time to drawdown our troop presence & to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq so that we can increase resources for a mission in Afghanistan, rebuild our military, & invest in our struggling economy at home,” said Senator Obama.

Spencer’s bang on when he says this hits all a right notes.

First, it makes a point that a administration came around to a wisdom of Obama’s position after exhausting a alternatives. Second, it portrays Obama’s position as a consensus view. Third, it puts McCain on a horns of a dilemma: Eiar endorse Obama’s consensus position — & areby flip-flop & concede his opponent’s judgment is superior — or be out of a responsible mainstream. Third-&-a-half, if McCain stays consistent, a Obama line draws a wedge between Bush & McCain.

But are’s a fourth reason, & it’s a most crucial of all. Did you notice how Obama is talking about “success in Iraq”? He’s taking that concept & giving it a common-sense meaning: getting out responsibly — that is, leveraging withdrawal into a diplomatic strategy with a Iraqi government & a region – is what success means.

A definition of success that actually works & a plan that even a Bush administration has come around to, albeit very reluctantly. That shows both leadership & judgement.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back