The Iraqi "Timetable" Debacle, or, WTF?

Great Debates
1

It just gets wierder.

First, we have this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/07/maliki-timeline/

(Note: quotes are taken directly from Think Progress, which supplies the links embedded in the text. I have clicked the links to check, they go where they say that they go, and that’s good enough for me. Think Progress is a distinctly lefty site, so anti-cooty protocols may be applied if deemed appropriate…)

Yesterday:

The response?

Something short of a ringing endorsement…

Followed by the appropriate ensuing hilarity…

(emphasis added)

Then today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

What confuses me most about this is the WH resistance. Here is a marvelous opportunity to declare victory and get the fuck out of BaghDodge. It would be a tremendous boost for McCain, giving him a chance to get out from under the cloud of disapproval of his Iraq war support. So long as we dress it up nice, so that it doesn’t look like we’re getting kicked out, its ponies! ponies! ponies! What’s not to like?

Unless, of course, its true what the DFH have been saying, that the US is angling for a permanent occupation (or “presence”, if you’ve a taste for euphemism…)

My take? al Maliki has decided that he can suppress or co-opt the Sadrist radicals, and he must have recieved at least tacit support from al Sistani. He figures the support and approval he would get from giving the US the bum’s rush will ensure electoral victory. He figures he can handle the Sunni resistance, perhaps better with fewer witnesses. Cut a deal with the Kurds, with careful wording around “autonomy” and “sovereignty”.

Result: a Shia dominated state (well, duh!) with warm relations with Iran, and somewhat neutral relations with the US. More or less “secular” in comparison to Iran, but very respectful of Shia traditions and concerns, not so much for Sunni, Christian, and other.

What I don’t get is the Bushivik resistance. This is a golden opportunity to get out from under, to declare victory and have troops home in time for the Gosh, Do We Ever Love The Leader victory parades, which would go a long, long way to securing the elections. Manna from Heaven.

Can it possibly be that they *still * think they are going to get permanent bases in Iraq? Can they possibly be this delusional? Could they really be so braindead as to scorn this gift to hold on to a dim and receding prospect?

Brothers and sisters, pals and gals: What The Fuck?

2

I could not care less about an article that includes this:

3

In your particular case, the anti-cooty protocols are entirely superfluous.

But, OK, thats one vote, apparently, for “The DFH at *Think Progress * made it all up, and its a pack of lies.” Dully noted.

4

I never wrote that.

5

Hence the qualifier “apparently”, as in, “this is the how I interpret”. Your options to expand upon and clarify are unhindered.

6

Do you think they really meant that Bush could care less? Meaning that he does care some amount. Or do you think they meant he could not care less? Meaning he does not care.

7

A very droll impression of someone trying to derail a substantive question into a discussion of grammar. Commendable irony! But elsewhere, perhaps?

8

Hasn’t Bush said that if the Iraqi’s ask us to leave, we will leave?
I’m not seeing that he has a leg to stand on in rejecting Maliki’s ideas.

9

Can you imagine, for even a moment, if some government decided that George W. Bush was an imminent threat to the safety of their country, that he was guilty of calling for and condoning torture, and ultimately responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and decided to invade the United States to depose him? Imagine them sending tens of thousands of troops into our country and wreaking utter chaos and terror. Imagine their presence causing the collapse of whatever safeguards we already have in place for protecting our borders, and suddenly we’re being infiltrated by Mexican drug lords who are bringing their murder and mayhem into our country.

Now imagine we elect a new leader and that leader says, please leave, and that country says, no.

I’m disgusted and embarrassed by the actions of my government. I wish to Og there was something more I could do to hold them accountable. :mad:

10

All along the Bush Admin has been saying a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal would just give the insurgents a signal for when to prepare to fight in earnest. But Maliki has a lot more to lose than we do from a successful rebellion; he’s the one who goes to the wall. If even he thinks a timetable for getting our troops out of his country is imperative, we should listen to him.

11

I honestly think that the Bush admin does not have, nor has ever had a clear idea of what the ultimate end goal was for Iraq, other than “spreading democracy”. Ask 5 admin officials, and you’d likely get 7 answers.

This should be exactly the get out of jail card they’ve been looking for. Someday, historians, psychologists, attorneys, and probably psychics are going to write libraries of books trying to decipher what the blue hell happened in the US from 2001-2008. There is simply no foresight or strategy at all.

12

Bit of a sticky biscuit, that. Saying “no” is not an option, or at least so extreme an option as to be unthinkable. We have the legitimacy of a UN permission slip draped over this clusterfuck, but it is due to run out. Hence, the relative urgency to reach a state-to-state agreement with Iraq. An agreement that is not a treaty, mind you, because such a treaty may require Senate approval. So its not a treaty, its something else that walks like a treaty, quacks like a treaty, and floats. But *not * a treaty.

Or, perhaps, I’m wrong, perhaps “no” is an option. Primo Levi famously remarked that Hell is the place where reason is impossible.

13

Time for regime change!

Malaki off on extended “visit w/family”

14

This is a thing. It really is, and I hope we get it out. Basically, I think Bush/Cheney/McCain think of Iraq as a colony.

15

It was that way from the beginning.

“Wars are never fought for one reason; they are fought for dozens of reasons, in a muddle.”

– Merlin, in T.H. White’s The Once and Future King.

16

You don’t get it because you can’t believe that Bush actually thinks we need to be there. For whatever reason, Bush thinks he’s right, and is willing to risk political calamity for doing what he thinks is right. It’s the only explanation that makes sense to me, as I’ve been telling you for several years now. He’s not looking for an easy exit. He’s looking for US control/influence in the M.E., and he thinks us being in Iraq is a big part of that equation.

17

I think that you are correct about Bush’s view and motivation. I also think that elucidator is correct in his OP that al Maliki thinks that he is very close to the point where he can hang onto power, and therefore his skin, without US troops. I think that this means we’re going to see another 1984-ish adjustment in how long we’re going to stay and why. Bush has said repeatedly that we are there because the Iraqis want us there. When that’s no longer true - War is peace!

18

This is my take as well.

For whatever reason that can’t be explained in 25 words or less that Joe Sixpack from Camel Toe, Iowa can understand, the Current Occupant really believes the complete gibberish that is his administration’s policy. To that end, he’s said, “We’re not leaving based on any timetables.” It makes absolutely no difference that the Iraqi’s want us out and that their giving his group of yahoos the perfect opportunity to leave. He’s said, “We’re not leaving based on any timetables” and, god damn it, he means it.

I personally still think that one of the reasons we went to Iraq to begin with is because of the threat made against Bush I’s life. The “You don’t threaten my dad and get away with,” sort of juvenile nincompoopery that is worth in excess of 4,000 American lives, our reputation abroad, and one hundred impossibillion, thirty four million, seven hunder scarillion dollars and counting.

19

May 24, 2007

[Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we’ve asked before, but you can begin it with a “yes” or “no.”

THE PRESIDENT: 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. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.](Briefing Room | The White House)

Oops.

20

Could it be that they think things will go all pear-shaped, as our cousins across the pond so charmingly say, the minute we leave? Or that Maliki will climb into the nearest warm sleeping bag with Ahmadinejad?

I think Bush would rather either of these two eventualities happen on someone else’s watch. I don’t suppose he cares whether it’s McCain’s or Obama’s – and in fact he might even prefer it be Obama’s.