Can You Hear Me Now?
At this rate, I’m worried that John McCain is going to need a wheelchair if the Iraqis shoot him in the foot any more. Iraq’s Foreign Minister came out today with yet another statement to clarify the clarification of the enhanced explanation of the last five statements on the future of any sort of military presence by the United States in Iraq.
Iraq demands “very clear” U.S. troop timeline
The United States must provide a “very clear timeline” to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.
Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: “No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline.”
There are also worrying (at least from a GOP standpoint) ruminations still coming from Iraq’s officials. Although “compromises have been found” on most points, some of the Iraqi concerns still throw cold water on the picture often portrayed of U.S. – Iraqi relations in country.
A sticking point in the negotiations is Washington’s wish that its troops be immune from Iraqi law. In July, Iraq’s deputy speaker of parliament told Reuters lawmakers would likely veto any deal if this condition were granted.
Other hurdles include the power of the U.S. military to detain Iraqi citizens, and their authority to conduct military operations, Zebari said.
There comes a point where, even under the most optimistic of descriptions, we would have to stop being seen as “liberators” and begun to be viewed as “occupiers.” This is a far less flattering description. Unfortunately for the GOP, even after admitting that Obama’s sixteen month timeline was a “pretty good” estimate for withdrawing our forces, John McCain has continued to insist that Obama is “giving up on Iraq” by wanting a timeline, and hanging on to the idea that anything resembling a timeline is “surrender.”
I don’t know if the Iraqis want us to “surrender” to someone or not, but they certainly aren’t making any efforts to make sure McCain gets elected.
6 Responses to “Can You Hear Me Now?”
Of course the Kurds want us to stay. They have the most to gain. And they have been the most reluctant (if not outright fighting) every step towards full unification of the country. They exist, but they are hardly a good example of “all Iraqis” Marlowecan. In fact, they barely want to be “Iraqis” at all, given that they have a strong independent streak and have a great economy going all on their own without being saddled with the Baghdad beurocracy. However, using them as some sort of example of how “regular Iraqis” want us to stick around forever is quite disingenuous on your part.
JSpencer…really, we all know Obama is going to lose. Not because of Iraq, but Georgia.
I learned today — from the ever trustworthy Huffingtonpost – that the war in Georgia is really a plot developed by aides to John McCain, together with President Bush, to ensure a GOP victory in November.
Senator Obama is clearly outmatched by the dark geniuses of the GOP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/w…
I agree Jazz, the Kurds don't really even want to be Iraqis (given their treatment by Saddam, one can hardly take them to task for that).
However, I propose them as one group of Iraqis who want the US to stay in some way. I suspect the same can now be said of many Sunnis . . . who look to the Shi'a dominance with some forboding.
The “immunity” argument is, as I noted, a standard bargaining chip the Iraqis have trotted out in the past. It is impossible to believe the US would remain in Iraq without it . . . for any Iraqi death in an attack on US soldiers would become a “war crime”.
Yes, Sistani wants the US . . . the “big guest” in his words . . . gone eventually. Most Americans want most US forces out as well.
But polls also show a willingness to remain in various limited forms to secure long-term US interests. Since there is no one outside of DailyKOS who believes the 16 month timeline is achievable logistically. . . even Obama showing a willingness for flexibility on the details, as well as long term presence . . . this is not the election issue it once was.
The Surge — an abject and total failure, I note, in the view of the good folks at Crooks and Liars today, and of so many on the Left — has changed the Iraqi facts on the ground, and the US election narrative, to that degree.
I wonder how President Obama will engineer the firing of General Betray-us for his incomptence in Iraq, and for lying to Congress and the American people?
JSpencer…really, we all know Obama is going to lose. Not because of Iraq, but Georgia.
I learned today — from the ever trustworthy Huffingtonpost – that the war in Georgia is really a plot developed by aides to John McCain, together with President Bush, to ensure a GOP victory in November.
Senator Obama is clearly outmatched by the dark geniuses of the GOP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/w…
You could be right about Sen. Obama being outmatched by the “dark geniuses”. Anyone who has paid attention for the past dozen years knows enough not to put much past the GOP. And although I'm not a conspiracy theorist at heart, it's clear the Cheney/Bush folks have no problem putting their own interests ahead of America's interests when it suits them. That said, I'll withold judgement on the Georgia situation until we know more.
“In fact, a brief review of the media indicates almost identical calls by senior Iraqi politicians in past years — quoted, as with Jazz, in American media with ominous overtones for the US/GOP — for an end to the “immunity” and occupation.”
In the past the Iraqis have really just been calling wolf on this…. The Iraqis are powerless while Bush plays politics with the American public over this. And McCain is trying to do the same- McCain can not let Obama be right about Iraq or even appear that Obama's ideas are better than McCain's. If McCain loses the American public on this then he has lost the election. So McCain has to paint any action that Obama does with regards to Iraq as “losing” or not wanting to win the war. Speaking of which, are we still at war with Iraq? I don't think so… after all the government is our puppet. The US military presence under Bush will remain and the Iraqis are just whining. However with the possibility of a US president (Obama) who DOES respect Iraqi sovereignty the Iraqis are feeling bold and want to push their proposals, especially since the Iraqis know that Bush is a lame duck and will be out of office in a few months (not soon enough).
——
“The “immunity” argument is, as I noted, a standard bargaining chip the Iraqis have trotted out in the past. It is impossible to believe the US would remain in Iraq without it . . . for any Iraqi death in an attack on US soldiers would become a “war crime”.”
Uh… if someone attacks the US military and if while defending itself the US military kills those attackers, I don't think that can be considered a war crime…. We've seen time and time again of how the US military (and Blackwater, etc.) has killed Iraqi civilians for no good reason other than the attitude of the soldiers that they can get away with anything (including rape). For these crimes the US soldiers (and private security firms) should be held accountable. We are running amok in Iraq and the Iraqis are tired of it. Also, are we fighting a war against the Iraqis? No…. I thought we were in Iraq to tamp down terrorist (or whatever Bush is calling them these days) activity…. It is not reasonable (to me) that the US military (and security firms) should have carte blanche to do whatever they want in Iraq.
As far as Obama firing “General Betray-us” … I'm not sure he will. Obama is not beholden to Moveon and I think General Petraeus will do Obama's bidding, just as he did Bush's bidding…. I think Moveon is more concerned about pulling the troops than they are about installing one of “their own” as a General…. simply because Moveon doesn't have a General they want to install. The political game with Moveon is to get the troops out. Moveon is only calling for the removal of General Betray-us because he has tethered himself to Bush. I think Obama and Petraeus have respect for each other's competence, though Obama doesn't like the politics that Petraeus is playing.