An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Maliki Says U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq by 2011

Lost somewhere in the wall-to-wall coverage of the Democratic Convention is an interesting development coming out of Iraq:

Iraq and the United States have agreed that a planned security pact will require all U.S. troops to leave by the end of 2011, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday, while Washington said no final deal had been reached.

“There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil,” Maliki said in a speech to tribal leaders in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone.

“Yes, there is major progress on the issue of the negotiations on the security deal,” Maliki said.

The Iraqi government had proposed in bilateral talks that U.S. troops end patrols of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year, and that U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by 2011, under a pact that will govern their presence after 2008.

So there is agreement, or so Maliki claims, on the date, but not on the specifics. According to State Department spokesman Robert Wood, there is no deal yet. For more on this — on the stumbling blocks — see my post from earlier this month.

Essentially, the U.S. is being forced out of a war it started and grossly mismanaged and, in many ways, lost, with the warmongers facing a firm timeline the very principle of which they have opposed all along.

Of course, the warmongers will blame the Iraqis themselves for Iraq’s problems, not least if the post-withdrawal period goes badly, but this is one huge slap in the face for those, like McCain, who still support this terrible war. The Americans were never really greeted as liberators and now they are being pushed out so that, at long last, the Iraqis can take full control of their country’s destiny.

  • Neocon
    Now is the time for GWB and the Republicans to announce further pull outs and to bring down the amount of soldiers that are in Iraq. Lets see if the stablility is real or its just a hoax.

    They want us out...........its time to leave. No more money spent in that country. We found nothing. We have worked hard to balance the country. Lets come home.

    Now. Today. They want it. Give it to them.
  • DLS
    It's obviously hyperventilatory and premature to start barking loudly about this (and bash "warmongers," etc., ad nauseum), but we do have next-door Kuwait if we still have a need to maintain a suitable presence in the Middle East to stop Iranian and other trouble (the kind of trouble the "warmonger" crowd would be the first to start barking loudly about demanding why we Didn't Do Something).
  • I wrote a post about this news myself today.

    My conclusion: "2011 is a long way away and without firm commitments on both sides, there is no guarantee we aren’t just looking at another empty promise"
  • jwest
    Michael,

    You seem to imply in your article that at some point, George Bush/Dick Cheney, John McCain or some other republican advocated keeping U.S. combat troops in Iraq one day longer than was absolutely necessary.

    Could you post a link to that?

    Of course, there is no link to something that never happened. Bush’s policy has been to leave Iraq the minute commanders on the ground assure him that Iraqi forces can handle the security of the country or, when asked by the Iraqi government to leave.

    Despite posturing for internal Iraqi consumption, Maliki will not insist on the removal of all U.S. forces. The man is not an idiot. Permanent bases such as those we maintain in Korea, Japan, Germany and dozens of other locations will allow the Iraqi government to spend its oil wealth on the welfare of its citizens without the need to purchase billions in military hardware.

    There is a difference of opinion between those of us who believe it is worth the lives and treasure to try to change the world for the better and those who want people subject to genocide and oppression to fend for themselves, but luckily that argument is moot now in Iraq.
  • DLS
    Don't forget the associated malevolent myths such as seizure of oil (which didn't happen in Iraq any more than it happened in the Middle East in 1973).
  • Don't forget the associated malevolent myths such as seizure of oil (which didn't happen in Iraq any more than it happened in the Middle East in 1973).

    Oil is still a major-major part of the continued occupation of Iraq. Seizing the fields wholesale was always an impossibility. Opening them up to our corporations for exploitation was, and is part of the plan. The rest is about nominal control of the exports. If push comes to shove, the US wants to be able to shut the spigot for the rest of the world.
  • Ricorun
    You seem to imply in your article that at some point, George Bush/Dick Cheney, John McCain or some other republican advocated keeping U.S. combat troops in Iraq one day longer than was absolutely necessary.

    In a way that's true. Basically the meme has been we need to keep US combat troops in Iraq as long as they are needed, and for 1000 years as long as they aren't. Sounds like they have all the bases covered.
  • Rico,
    Right. McCain has pointed to Germany and Japan as models for our presence in Iraq. We still have troops in those countries, and they aren't needed for security.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC