BAGHDAD, Aug. 21, 2008
U.S., Iraq Eye Troop Exit By End Of 2011
Both Nations Agree On Timetable For U.S. Military Departure, But Deal Still Incomplete
-
-
Photo
A U.S. army soldier attached to Eagle Company, 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment patrols a street on the outskirts of Baqouba, the capital of Iraq's Diyala province, some 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, Aug. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/Marko Drobnjakovic)
-
Photo
U.S. soldiers stand guard as a displaced Iraqi family return to their home in the Jihad area of west Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
-
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
Subject to final approval by the top Iraqi leadership, the exit date for U.S. troops would be December 2011, although the Americans insist on linking that target to additional security and political progress.
President Bush has long resisted a timetable for pulling out, even under heavy pressure from a nation distressed by American deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003. But that has softened in recent weeks.
The timing has major political importance in both Iraq and the United States.
The two contenders to replace Bush as commander in chief, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, spar almost daily over the future course of the war.
Obama wants all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, saying they are needed more urgently in Afghanistan. McCain says recent security improvements in Iraq show that decisions on the timing of further pullouts should be determined by circumstances on the ground rather than by prearranged timetables - a position the White House has vigorously held until recently.
The administration has inched toward the Iraqi view that setting at least a target date for withdrawal would make it politically palatable for Iraq's government to accept a substantial U.S. troop presence beyond this year.
The rationale for the pullout is that Iraqi security forces will be ready to stand on their own, although it remains possible that some U.S. military training role would continue. In Iraq, provincial elections are supposed to be held later this year, followed by national balloting in 2009.
In one key part of the draft agreement, private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law, unlike at present, but the American side held firm in its insistence that U.S. troops would remain subject exclusively to U.S. legal jurisdiction, officials said.
There is an additional sense of urgency to complete a deal because the U.N. Security Council resolution that sets the legal basis for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is due to expire at the end of this year.
Asked about withdrawal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday in Baghdad, "We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in such an agreement." Her use of the term "aspirational" suggested that the timetables would be linked in some undisclosed way to the attainment of measurable progress in the security, political and perhaps economic fields.
Other U.S. officials said the deal includes agreement that by June 30, 2009, U.S. combat forces would be out of Iraq's cities, set up elsewhere in the country in what the military calls an overwatch role - available to assist Iraqi security forces as needed, while continuing to train and advise Iraqi troops.
At a joint news conference, Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the two sides had accepted the draft agreement and would await a review by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top Iraqi leaders - some of whom oppose some parts of the deal - as well as the Iraqi parliament. The next step is consideration by al-Maliki and his executive council Friday.
In the Sadr City section of eastern Baghdad, more than 500 followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr held a rally Thursday evening to denounce the Rice visit and the proposed security arrangement. Marchers carried flags and al-Sadr's picture, chanting, "No to the agreement."
Saleh al-Mutlaq, leader of the second-largest Sunni faction in parliament, issued a statement saying the Americans should not depend on any agreement signed with the Shiite-dominated government. He called on the government to put the deal to a popular referendum rather than simply submit it to parliament.
U.S. officials in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because the deal is not final, said Bush administration acceptance of the arrangements was not in doubt unless Iraqi leaders insisted on changes. The administration has pledged to inform Congress but not submit the agreement for formal approval.
In Baghdad, Rice met with Zebari, al-Maliki and other officials on a brief visit intended to push the Iraqis toward agreement.
Said Zebari: "This agreement determines the principal provisions, requirements to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission, of U.S. forces."
Bush has stood firmly behind al-Maliki, and the U.S. resisted pressure last year from its Sunni Arab allies elsewhere in the Middle East to dump the Shiite prime minister in favor of a more secular leader.
But al-Maliki has apparently taken a tough stand in the negotiations to refurbish his nationalist credentials and avoid the label of "America's man" ahead of coming elections.
The Shiite political establishment is also anxious to run the country without U.S. constraints, believing it has the right as leaders of Iraq's largest community, which had been marginalized politically since the modern Iraqi state was established following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.
Rice spoke optimistically of completing a deal but stressed that it still needed top-level Iraqi approval. She also said it was made possible by security improvements.
"I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger," she said.
Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: "This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."
A State Department transcript of Zebari's remarks said he added that Iran had been advised of that provision.
In other developments:
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 436 CommentsThis is just a smoke screen to help McBush get elected and then pull one of those Republican -
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I%u2019m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Now that''s should be the Republican Motto.
---
In other words, it''s all al Maliki''s fault.
For his part, the Iraqi PM should be careful to conceal that sardonic sneer, as he "negotiates" his sovereign country''s freedom from US cccupation-- aka, he has Big Oil and Bush exactly where he wants them. Even al Sadr has quieted down, lest he upset these most fruitful negotiations.
Meanwhile, hoping to remind us of their intense "patriotism"-- the same kind that blindly endorsed the Bush fraud that led this country into Iraq-- many GOP bozos are backtracking desperately from their weasel words of the past.
No longer autonomically reciting their old (six months ago?) pledge, "No Surrender! Down with Defeatocrats!" Instead, it''s now, "The Surge Worked! Time to go home now, right, Mr. McBush?"
Meanwhile, McBush, ever the tough negotiator, is holding out for another 100 years.
Our mouth may say "guest" and "helpers" and "heroes" but we are occupiers and oppressors. We can say we will only stay until they want us to go--but our insistence in staying proves we lied.
The deal is--we are invaders...in the 21st century. We are there based on lies. The present regime with many people (including Al Maliki ) were NEVER elected by the people and are collaborators with us. To collaborate with the enemy or invades requires them to commit treason to their own people for power or money.
We can paint this war, our intentions and acts every color under the rainbow--in the end, no matter the spin--some things stand glaringly out--if a country is sovereign, leaving is not negotiated--it is dictated and the "guests" get the fvck out.
Stop the lies. They, more than any other aspect are demoralizing us.
Condoleezza Rice and her Polish
counterpart",,, Delentcic Kraznisky,
who also lies, lies about lieing and
has an illegal war crime invasion of
a sovereign country to her credit,,,,,
Posted by whiskyrokkr
Yep, and grab some phrasebooks while you''re there as you will be needing to speak the language soon.
Posted by oledakota
Nice post, but do you think you may have missed something ... like a point?
She''s doing the dealings across the sea...
For King George and Satan Cheney....
She''s the Secretary of State you see...
She''s Kindasleezy!!...
Posted by tapsettle at 06:25 AM : Aug 21, 2008
I clearly understand HIS points, why are we in Iraq still. What I do NOT understand is YOUR post! There were and still are NOT any Weapons there. There was NO connection with the attack on us, so exactly why are we there? They don''t want us, it''s obvious they are NOT going to govern as we would like and they are going to ally themselves with Iran. ANY fool should be able to understand that so why are we still there? Sieg Heil McSlime
Posted by MCVet-1
I couldn''t agree with you more, in fact I usually agree with you. Just didnt understand oledakota point. In fact I still dont see the point even after reading your explanation. I probably agree with you both, just cant see oledakota ''s point.
(Specify if other)
M4eanwhile Senator McCain agrees it may be time to reinstitute the draft so he has adequate troops to chase Bin Laden to the "Gates of Hell". Could he be planning excursions through Iran and against the Russians in Georgia before focusing on afghanistan and the the Al Qaeda sanctuaries somewhere near the mythical Iraq - Pakistan border?
Not to mention the distribution of oil revenues.
In other words, the same four issues that Iraq has dug their heels in for despite pressure from Condee Puppetmaster.
And the press once again got suckered by the Bush-Cheney regime. Aren''t there any real reporters left?--or just brownnosing a$$licking operatives?
Should Russia put MDS in cuba? Recall the 60''s!
Few people know the history of how we got into the war with Iraq, but this video shows the neocons in the Bush administration---known as the Project for the New America Century---or PNAC, and how they had one goal....world domination.
The VIDEO traces the rise of PNAC which includes *** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons inside the BUSH administration who lied to the American public..
Watch VIDEO here: http://www.youtube.com/v/VgdPY_U6lqg&hl=en&fs=1
This is the second part of a two-part video series on how we got into the war with IRAQ. PNAC, an evil cabal of neocons inside the BUSH White House lied to the American public to get us into the war.
See video here: http://www.youtube.com/v/zQi9lXyj0HM&hl=en&fs=1
Remember that old commercial, "Phone first"?
Then after the election we send our troops and soldiers to Poland..
At least there are trees there and it is cooler..
Posted by notblue at 09:50 AM : Aug 21, 2008
I think what you meant to say was their* not so lame attempt to guarantee an end to the Iraq was having been motivated by a want to preserve and protect our nation''s bravest (soldiers), and counter our country''s failing moral authority on the world stage due to the disingenuous, poorly planned and executed attack on a nation that posed no threat whatsoever. Democrats weren''t trying to legislate failure...they were trying to right 8 years of wrongdoing by our high and mighty cowboy leader. You may be satisfied with our country being viewed on the world stage as being irrationally aggressive towards another sovereignty, hypocritical in our use of torture, and absolute insistence on being present in a region where the populace would rather die than see us there...but some of us have a heart.
WHAT?! They''ve agreed in principle that timetables will be implemented! Can you SAY, FLIP-FLOP!?
After he''s spent the last 3-4 years saying NO timetables will be agreed to?! There you go, all you rightwing nutjobs, there''s your REAL main man!
What''s THAT?! Troops to start being withdrawn in JUNE 2009?! WHAT?! OBCOURSE, it''s AFTER Bush has left and is out of office! The coward---he can start a war, but can''t finish it!
And, has everyone noticed how gas has come down a measly 40 cents or so?! It might get down to $3 bucks.
Amazing isn''t it?! Nothing really has changed there, except an election is coming up and a lot of people will be voting against RepugliCONS! Let''s hope!
Posted by notblue at 09:50 AM : Aug 21, 2008
The Bush regime is currently negotiating a withdrawal plan, that is obviously inspired by Obama''s withdrawal plan - after all it is identical to what Obama proposed.
So in short:
Obama''s withdrawal proposal = bad
Bush''s withdrawal proposal (which is IDENTICAL) = good
How sad that you''re so clueless.
Posted by ConDumbism at 10:15 AM : Aug 21, 2008
---------------------
Numerous excellent points!
Before Bush stole office, his condumbasses were smart enough to know they didn''t know anything, so they didn''t pollute the airwaves!
After Bush got in, it became alright for them to express their opinions and show the rest of us that they didn''t know anything!
Thus, the smart have been dumbed down a little, but the dumb got DUMBER! That''s a part of the Bush legacy, too!
Posted by ddhinnyc at 10:17 AM : Aug 21, 2008
-------------------
WHAT?! What are you putting in your breakfast cereal, pal?! Since when have, ''...we have won the war...''?
Did Bush hold another press conference the last day or two that I don''t know about in which he claimed for about the twentieth time, we have won the war!?
If so, my advice is don''t listen to that liar! Believe me, the fighting continues! It''s not over yet!
Saying things like that, really makes you look like a fool or worse yet, a rip roaring idiot!
-----------------
Posted by luvienne
LMAO. Yes that is why Obama wants to make Afghanistan the Central Fight on Terrorism. Unlike American Idol, you only get one vote.
Posted by notblue
That would be success or failure at what?
Posted by panhandlpete at 08:11 AM : Aug 21, 2008
You are a moron. Russia is making a big deal out of the MDS in Poland BECAUSE IT CAN. The MDS is no threat at all to Russia. Russia has thousands of warheads... the MDS in Poland has ten missiles.
And no, a MDS in Cuba is not the same as the nukes in Cuba like in the 60s. The MDS has zero offensive capabilities, and it could not possibly stop thousands of American warheads. So no, the MDS is not the problem for Russia. America is the problem. They hate us and NATO... always have and always will. The MDS is just another excuse to do things like attack Georgia and possibly Eastern Europe (like Poland and the Czech Republic where the MDS is located).
Russia saying that the American''s MDS is a threat is the biggest political joke ever. Anyone dumb (or supportive) enough to take Russia''s position is just a Putin sympathizer... a KGB loving communist.
Bush emphasizes opposition to timetable for Iraq withdrawal
By Steven Lee Myers Published: July 16, 2008
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush has said Iraq wanted to include an "aspirational goal" for the departure of most foreign troops there in any agreement authorizing future U.S. operations, but he reiterated his opposition to what he called "an artificial timetable for withdrawal."
His remarks Tuesday reflected growing doubt within the administration that the United States could negotiate an agreement that would clear the way for U.S. troops to operate in Iraq for many years. Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, had pledged to reach such an agreement last year.
Bush instead referred to a seemingly more modest "understanding" with Iraq on the legal status of foreign troops once the current UN mandate expires.
An administration official said later Tuesday that a pact that would cover U.S. operations - including combat missions and detaining Iraqis - could still be reached by the end of this month, but only by leaving specific legal details governing military forces, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, to future talks.
Posted by stn_sage at 10:33 AM : Aug 21, 2008
You do realise that this old cliche'' has no merit. I am not a Republican. However, am I not right in remembering that in addition to the original vote, the recounts (all 4) put Bush ahead of Al Gore. All of the recounts were completed in predominately democratic districts as opposed to the whole state. This fiasco was over a month old and had to be remedied. Was the country supposed to stand by and wait for enough recounts in certain areas until Gore had the vote? I remember them throwing out the overseas military vote because it came in late (as if this was the troops fault).
So, a couple questions:
1. Why is a timetable acceptable now that Bush has agreed to it?
2. Does this mean that we have won the war?
3. If we withdraw, leaving a residual force of course, and the situation in Iraq suddenly gets worse - will it be Bush''s fault for withdrawing? Or is everything always the Democrats fault, no matter what?
Yes, but remember, those were the districts where most of the anamolies occured, including the fact that the GOP districts were more likely to have more-up-to-date voting machines and were less likely to have the "chad" problem.
Clearly, more votes would have been netted to Gore, even if the recount was state-wide.
I will never believe that had the recount continued, that Gore would have won the election.
And imagine how much better off we would be today!
Silly defeatist conservatives.
Grow some hair on yer chests!
Under Bush we are always behind the curve in reactive mode rather than proactive mode. Even the invasion of Iraq long described as a preventative strike was nothing more than a reactive excuse to pummel a nearly defenseless nation to blame someone for 911.
Bush doesn''t have the smarts for a chess match with Russia. We better get someone with some brains in office this time instead of another neocon New World Disorder advocate.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 436 Comments