If Iraq asked us, would we leave?

No, we wouldn't leave. Strategic control of oil is the paramount US mission in Iraq, and the Iraqi people or their government will never be able to simply ask us to leave.

Remember all the talk last year (from both Dems and Republicans) about how Al Maliki had to go and that we should replace him? How does that jive with the idea that Iraq is a sovereign nation?

Great question, easy answer: No and no.

Nah, I don't think we'd leave either. The only "good news" for both men is that there seems little chance of us being asked.

If the Iraqi government asked us to leave right now, do you think President Bush would agree to do so?

No, of course he wouldn't.

al-Maliki told Bush he wanted Blackwater out of Iraq. How did that work out?

And/or if elected, would John McCain agree a year from now, if asked?

No, of course he wouldn't.

Polimom,

While no one can say what would (will?) happen if (when?) the Iraqi government asks the US to leave, the question has been asked:

" . . . asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

That was in 2005. The White House has more than once reiterated this position. One might think that would put the issue to bed.

It would seem to me that the public assurance of the President of the United States would be a bit difficult to just walk away from. Alas, too many on the left are so afflicted with BDS that they just "know better!"

It seems like it should be nice to be clairvoyant, though on second thought, these 'gifted' (afflicted?) folks don't seem to be very happy in their visions.

TM -- While I'm not as certain of the answer as some of the other commenters have been, I also wonder whether the US would actually deliver on the promise to which you refer.

But to put this off to BDS, I think, misses the boat. I think this question goes to a larger view of how committed the US is to its own interests over those of host countries.

For instance: If the Japanese said, tomorrow, that it would like us to remove ourselves from Okinawa, would we?

Or if the Germans decided that WWII is far enough in the past, and they don't want to serve as a buffer anymore against Russia, would we leave if they asked?

How about South Korea? Would the US interest in NK's activities trump a SK request to leave?

If the answers to those are different from the Iraq question, why would that be? Because I'm not sure, actually, that there's any difference at all...

Polimom,

I agree. On the matter of leaving when asked, there is (or should be) no difference.

One suspects that it has been seen (by various elected governments of these nations) to be in the best interest of Japan, Germany, and Korea NOT to ask the US to remove its military forces for all these many decades.

Is it really a stretch to think that maybe the government of Iraq might find similar reasons to invite us to stay for a while as well?

If they did so, would President Hillary or President Obama say "yes", or just laugh at them and redouble the speed of their promised withdrawal?

Who can know . . .

I agree with The Master that I see no immediate future in which the Iraqi government asks the American armed forces to leave. They get too much out of it - security for free; infratructure paid for by the American people. However, if such a prospect were to arise, I find it hard to believe that the President's answer in the interview you linked is the final word. First off, enormous pressure would be applied behind the scenes to make sure such an event never occurred. Second, what else can the President answer to this question? If he answers 'no', it's a political firestorm and an attack on the government they are trying to prop up. It's like asking Clinton today whether she is about to quit her campaign (or asking a college football coach if they are interviewing for another job right before the Bowl Game). You can't say right before the pivotal election that you're ready to abandon. Those bases aren't being built for a 5-10 year presence.

I did want to add that choosing to leave a sovereign nation even when they want you to stay is not the same as staying in one that wants you to leave. The first is a disagreement between sovereign nations; the second is an admission that the one nation is not truly sovereign. I'm sure there are many nations who would love for us to ship money to them to construct roads, schools, and hospitals. If we choose not to do so, we are exercising our freedom of choice. However, if we are inside another nation pursuing our interests and refuse to stop when asked, we are saying that other nation has no freedom to choose.

Leave as occupiers? Eventually.

Leave completely? I doubt it. The case is strong for maintaining a military force in Iraq, stronger than our presence currently in Djibouti (next to Somalia, where we just conducted one or more air strikes against terrorists).

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5482.htm

No, because that would mean Iraq would have achieved our purported goal of becoming a sovereign state that could defend its own borders. Not only is that not likely to happen, but even if it did,we would use the threat of renewed incursions by al queda to retain our foothold in the region. That way we will defend our interests in Iraq's oil fields. I believe that is what McCain refers to when he states that the US will be in Iraq for the next 100 years.

Well, security of our oil supplies from the Middle East is a vital interest to the USA (as it also is to western Europe, for example), and even Carter made it clear we'd go to war to protect the oil if we had to. In fact, oil more than affinity for the Arabs or anti-Semitism in US society is why we have routinely conducted ourselves to the benefit of oil-producing nations (most notably the Saudis) often at Israel's neglect or expense (a distant #2 vital US-Western interest).

Though it cost Bush's father re-election in 1992, we didn't remove Hussein even though it was befitting (as it was this decade -- and critics continue to forget that Hussein was not going to live and be in power in Iraq forever; he was mortal like the rest of us) and "finish the job" in the early 1990s because we feared the very power vacuum and invitation to Iranian aggression that we have come to see. Complicating this is the set of advances terrorists have made in the last 10-15 (now) years. Unfortunately, now we're stuck. Only the foolish (the really rabid anti-war types) want a 100% evacuation immediately. Some military presence that will remain in Iraq after we've ended the occupation -- a presence in theory little different than our continued existence in western Europe, and more importantly in South Korea and even on Okinawa for now -- as well as the obvious case of Djibouti, is demanded by the logic of the situation there and the history of that region. Obviously we cannot and should never enable terrorists (or especially poorly-behaving Iranian proxies if you wish to strain to make a distinction) to have control over oil supplies on which we rely, and to use the revenue from them to pay for even more terrorism than nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia sponsor now.

I don't think situations in Japan, Germany, etc. are useful as comparions or object lessons. Those countires have governments that, whether liked or not l are accepted by the citizens as their respective legitimate governments.. When those governments speak, they speak for the their country.

Iraq, by contrast, is still extremely slpintered, and civilian strife has not gone away, despite the events due to the Anwar 'awakening."
Many Sunnis want the US to stay as protection FROM their government, which they often experience via contact with the Shiite dominated police an Iraq army units.
These contacts are often threateneing to them. To boot, these people often call on the US army to provide basic services, to act in place of a governmetn they can neither trust or rely on.

So, when discussing how to respond to the question about leaving, we would need to determine first, who is asking and on whose behalf. We would need to determine whether we want to deal with Iraq as a conglomerate of ALL its people, or whether we want to deal with a govenrment which represents only some of the people.

It's a fine kettle of fish we've got ourselves into. We have to discuss the complexities of leaving before fully coming to terms with why we arrived there in the first place or what our role there should be, now or in the future.

Withdrawel is a tricky issue, further complicated by constant distortions of reality to garner political brownie points. The defense industry may be pushing their weight behind maintaining a larger presence, because it keeps them knee-deep in lucrative contracts. The Cunningham mess was slowed to almost a complete stop after Carol Lam was fired, which tells me that we'll never really know how much influence the contractors had over war votes.

Doma- Of course discussing the complexities of leaving would be the reasonable and right course. But in a highly politicized environment, the reasonable course gets distorted until using the word withdrawel or timeline becomes synonymous with surrender and defeat. I'm hoping for a real upheaval in the status quo in '08, because unless the balance of power changes nothing of substance will get done for God knows how long.

An alternative that has been considered for a long time for Iraq is partition. That "solves" the unity problem.

DLS- Except ,the Iraqis themselves don't seem to want it. In some parts of Baghdad , tho, ethnic cleansing has lessened some of the sectarian conflict on its own.

At some point the US and it's citizens are going to have to make a cost-benefit calculation of having armed forces scattered in 200 bases around the World. Our economy is facing some very severe challenges over the next couple of decades with Social Security and healthcare in particular. Our balance of payments deficits are outrageous and $700+billion per year. At the present rate, 20 years from now foreigners will be holding us debt that exceeds our GNP.

The short answer is we probably cannot afford to remain the World's policeman for very much longer and we are going to have to start building an alternative to our security needs above and beyond our military.

Kritt is correct about the Iraqis not wanting partition.
That reverts back to the original point of my earlier comment. Who should decide?
The US? al-Maliki's government? A national referundum in Iraq?

We have never had a clear understanding of what our role in Iraq is or should be.
Unless we reach such an understanding soon, we will be fighting about it for generations.

Speak up, Mr. President, without hiding behind the 'democratically elected' placebo.