Now this is fascinating: Iraq’s government is proposing a timeline for U.S. troop removal. What’s most notable about it, to me, is that they’re putting in a tentative date of 2011, and also going out of their way to emphasize that there may need to be flexibility on that.
Since, of course, the U.S. has been promising since before we went in that if the democratically elected government of Iraq asked us to leave we would, I have no problem with this at all. What I find fascinating is the timing; we have a major Presidential candidate, the favorite to win, who won his party’s nomination in part by irresponsibly pledging a very speedy withdrawal of most of our troops. He’s been waffling on that, which a lot of observers (including many of his fans) predicted he would. But the people of Iraq, especially those who’ve been elected, know full well that too speedy a withdrawal will be disastrous for human rights and just about everything else in the region.
With this move, the Maliki government is providing cover for possible President Obama, and even more for possible President McCain. They make it much more likely that we won’t see a retreat in 2009 regardless of who wins. This is a very good thing.
{ 9 comments }
Dean, it hadn’t occurred to me until just this second but, although the withdrawalnik blogs are interpreting this as setting a time for U. S. troops to leave, it is just as surely a move to define a period during which U. S. troops will stay.
As such it may be insurance against the ambiguities of Sen. Obama’s campaign promises.  I’ve interpreted what he’s said as a pledge to stay in Iraq along with a (mistaken IMO) promise to stop active security patrolling by Americans.
This may be an unambiguously good thing.Â
I just listened to NPR this a.m., and Obama claims it is a victory for him (i.e., Iraq government is in line with his thinking) and (according to the reporter) GW opposes. NPR says this will delay the force agreement.
Dave: Yes, I’d say it’s almost certainly an effort by the Maliki government to address the ambiguities, and probably to stretch things out since they don’t want us leaving on the insanely short time schedule that Obama proposed (or used to propose, or may propose).
P Mike: Well of course he’ll spin it as a victory for his position. After all, they’re saying they want the troops out. But it’s on a timeline much longer than the one Obama used to be mentioning, and, they’re up front looking for wiggle room and suggesting the timeline may not be set in stone.
This is all to the good so far as I’m concerned; if it gives Obama cover to do the right thing (i.e. not leave with all speed) then great.
I agree it’s a good thing.
But it says alot when an Iraqi politician shows more sense than the leading politicians in the United States.
al-Maliki for President anyone?
Well, it’s about time they let us know when they should be ready to support themselves. I like this deadline it lets us know pretty much how much assistance they need and allows us to make policy decisions regarding such.
I think this has more to do with Iraqi politics than is does with American politics. There are suppose to be elections this fall in Iraq too.
Americans out! (but not right now)
doesn’t fit on placards very well or make a particularly good campaign slogan but I suspect it’s the view of many if not most Iraqis.
Pre-election stunts, pandering to the base, protests… Seems like Iraq has a healthy democracy in the works, and they learned from the best. I’m not even being snarky, the fact that these things are happening is proof of a stunning turn-around for them.
mikeca, PM Maliki’s comments were made in the UAE. That’s not particularly good for domestic Iraqi consumption but it’s fine for communicating with an American or Iranian audience.
Comments on this entry are closed.