POL: Iraqi Government Wants Timetable For Withdraw

[duckman]

hxxp://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD91PNNM81

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

By SALLY BUZBEE – 1 hour ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.
"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.
Some type of troop status agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said.

The U.S. military said a soldier had died from injuries sustained when a roadside bomb hit a troop convoy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says five other soldiers were wounded in Tuesday's attack in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah.

Associated Press reporters Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad and Abdul-Hussein al-Obeidi in Najaf contributed to this report

Looks like Americans are getting their wish. I'm personally glad about their request. It means that the Iraqis are ready to govern themselves and handle their own security.

[molson]

Originally Posted by duckman

Looks like Americans are getting their wish. I'm personally glad about their request. It means that the Iraqis are ready to govern themselves and handle their own security.

Color me skeptcial.

Though I guess there's only one way to find out.

If we pull out next year, the government is overun, and Iraq becomes a full-fledged terrorist state, would those in favor of a timetable be willing to go right back? And is your opinion about a timetable based on an opinion about the current stability of Iraq, or you just at the point where you want to cut ties with the whole thing regardless of consequences?

I should note that I have no idea what would happen if we left, and it's funny to me that so many Americans on a computer somewhere can be so sure about such things.

It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of people that were against the war and/or how it was run, but now are in favor of staying for reasons of practicality, though I don't think those things are inconsistent.

[molson]

Dola-

I guess my confusion is that the same people who mocked the US for their lack understanding of the insurgent element in Iraq now seem to think that same element will sit back and glady watch Iraq ruled by a US puppet government.

[Tekneek]

I thought this day was never supposed to come. Republicans had been saying they were confident US forces would continue to be welcome in Iraq indefinitely, but would agree to leave whenever asked. Now we will see if they begin to sing a different tune or not.

[molson]

"In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said."

Something tells me they're not ready yet....

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I thought this day was never supposed to come. Republicans had been saying they were confident US forces would continue to be welcome in Iraq indefinitely, but would agree to leave whenever asked. Now we will see if they begin to sing a different tune or not.

Isn't it reasonable to change their tune when the Iraqi security and "government" has proven to more incompetent than anyone could have predicted (through mostly fault of the US, no doubt, though that doesn't change the dilemma).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

Isn't it reasonable to change their tune when the Iraqi security and "government" has proven to more incompetent than anyone could have predicted (through mostly fault of the US, no doubt, though that doesn't change the dilemma).

No. It isn't. If your contention is that you would leave whenever asked, you need to honor that. Many suspected they would find a reason to support staying, when the time came, but it was always maintained that they would leave whenever asked. Now they are being asked to set a timetable for withdrawal, and will naturally come up with any number of reasons as to why that is a bad idea. Are we now in the business of protecting the Iraqi government from itself?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

If we pull out next year, the government is overun, and Iraq becomes a full-fledged terrorist state, would those in favor of a timetable be willing to go right back?

Define "full-fledged terrorist state".

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

I should note that I have no idea what would happen if we left, and it's funny to me that so many Americans on a computer somewhere can be so sure about such things.

I agree with this statement. Those of us who are not actively involved in a strategic, tactical, or otherwise logistical nature are merely speculating with grossly inadequate information.

That said...and based on my limited view of the situation...I find it hard to believe that any public official (whether Iraqi or American) that, publicly states they are in favor of a specific timetable for US troop withdrawal, is doing anything but just playing politics as usual. Specific "milestone" table...sure. Where "milestone" means Iraqi police/military are actively maintaining an acceptable level of security with no US troop intervention.

But simply stating you are going to withdraw troops in 6, 12, 18 months pending a re-evaluation of the security level is like stating water is wet. They have been doing this for the past 5 years...and so far, it hasnt been possible.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Are we now in the business of protecting the Iraqi government from itself?

Absolutely - you don't think that's important?

I guess that was kind of my question - so you'd be in favor of a timetable no matter the stability of the current Iraqi government?

I'm trying to take this away from a political discussion that you seem to want to get into. I know Republicans are wrong and greasy and slimey and whatever. I'm just curious about people's views of potential withdrawal consquences, and whether that fits into their opinion on a timetable (or whether their views are purely political).

The most cynical part of me thinks that some people want certain things to happen only because of the effect it will have on the legacies of certain people and groups.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Define "full-fledged terrorist state".

Let's say Al-Qaeda (or a group openly supported by Al-Qaeda) takes over.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No. It isn't. If your contention is that you would leave whenever asked, you need to honor that. Many suspected they would find a reason to support staying, when the time came, but it was always maintained that they would leave whenever asked. Now they are being asked to set a timetable for withdrawal, and will naturally come up with any number of reasons as to why that is a bad idea. Are we now in the business of protecting the Iraqi government from itself?

I think it is unfair to say that "Iraq" is asking the US to leave when one "Iraqi Official" makes a statement to reporters.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

This part of the article provides no context to the statements made...but also does not state PM al-Maliki wants a timetable for troop withdrawal. I think it also mischaracterizes Bush's opposition to a timetable...which has always been internally to US requests, not Iraqi requests.

[Tekneek]

If the Iraqi government asks for withdrawal terms, whether they are time or milestone based, the US government should not ask for something else. The presumption should be that they are only there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government. It should not matter whether the US government agrees with the concept or not. I expect the Iraqi government to make its own decisions and live by them.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

Absolutely - you don't think that's important?

I guess that was kind of my question - so you'd be in favor of a timetable no matter the stability of the current Iraqi government?

I'm trying to take this away from a political discussion that you seem to want to get into. I know Republicans are wrong and greasy and slimey and whatever. I'm just curious about people's views of potential withdrawal consquences.

No. Our way of life is based on being responsible for your own actions, whether that be a 17 year old getting his head knocked off by a roller coaster or a foreign government. If they want US forces to leave, then US forces should leave.

I'm not concerned about the consequences of leaving when/if asked to. It would no longer be of any concern to me.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Is it likely that a not-too-large group that is currently on the run in the mountains of Pakistan will take over an entire nation? More likely are the problems that will come from Iraq being a loose-knit coalition of three ethnic factions that don't much care for each other. Kind of like it is now, but without our boys getting blown up.

As it currently stands, Al-Qaeda is far more powerful and prevalent there than it ever was under Hussein. We've helped create any sort of "terrorist state" it may be, so I cannot pin that on anybody in Iraq's current government.

[sachmo71]

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country

This would not be good situation at all.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

This would not be good situation at all.

Why?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Let's say Al-Qaeda (or a group openly supported by Al-Qaeda) takes over.

Well, in such a scenario, we could re-invade, but I'd suspect that Iran would be ahead of us. And of course if Iran invaded Iraq because of Al-Qaeda, I'd suspect Saudi Arabia would be right behind (because of Iran).

A few weeks later there would be a U.N.-brokered ceasefire and you'd see a newly-partitioned Iraq with an Iranian puppet government on the Shiite side and a Saudi puppet government on the Sunni side.

With the new regimes in place and the sides separated, violence would come down (except for skirmishes on the border) and both sides would work feverishly to exploit their oil wealth (meaning a greater supply on the world market). This probably also means repressing overt religious troublemakers, since it isn't good for business & finance.

Except for the small case of the Kurds finally starting a 50-year war with the Turks, it's pretty much a win-win.

What was the question again?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No. Our way of life is based on being responsible for your own actions, whether that be a 17 year old getting his head knocked off by a roller coaster or a foreign government. If they want US forces to leave, then US forces should leave.

I'm not concerned about the consequences of leaving when/if asked to. It would no longer be of any concern to me.

But weren't you saying the amusement park should do more to help the kid and future morons, disagreeing with those who said it was the moron's problem and nobody else's?

An unstable Iraq (even if it was caused by us), is a way bigger problem than a kid getting his head lopped off by roller coaster, and you want to intervene in the latter but not the former?

[flere-imsaho]

The thing you're all overlooking are the months and months Iraq and the Bush Administration have been negotiating this Statement of Forces agreement. SOFs are in place around the world for U.S. troops and almost never create this amount of problems.

However the Bush Administration has been playing hardball with Iraq and trying to get a lot of stuff written into this SOF (before the end of the year deadline) with which no truly sovereign state would ever agree.

The statement summarized in this otherwise pretty woeful article is clearly, in context, just the latest in a low-level PR war between the two sides.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Why?

Because if they try to pin the US forces with even more complicated rules of engagement, we risk even more casualties and unfortunate incidents.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

But weren't you saying the amusement park should do more to help the kid and future morons, disagreeing with those who said it was the moron's problem and nobody else's?

Nope. I said they should do more to prevent these incidents from happening, not anything at all to help that kid or future morons. It is the concept of risk mitigation. I also said that I wanted Six Flags to be able to opt-out of better security measures in exchange for paying the bill whenever emergency officials were called out for a similar incident in the future. That is giving Six Flags the option to accept the risk.

An unstable Iraq (even if it was caused by us), is a way bigger problem than a kid getting his head lopped off by roller coaster, and you want to intervene in the latter but not the former?

Yes, but if they want that choice, who are we to tell them no?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, in such a scenario, we could re-invade, but I'd suspect that Iran would be ahead of us. And of course if Iran invaded Iraq because of Al-Qaeda, I'd suspect Saudi Arabia would be right behind (because of Iran).

A few weeks later there would be a U.N.-brokered ceasefire and you'd see a newly-partitioned Iraq with an Iranian puppet government on the Shiite side and a Saudi puppet government on the Sunni side.

With the new regimes in place and the sides separated, violence would come down (except for skirmishes on the border) and both sides would work feverishly to exploit their oil wealth (meaning a greater supply on the world market). This probably also means repressing overt religious troublemakers, since it isn't good for business & finance.

Except for the small case of the Kurds finally starting a 50-year war with the Turks, it's pretty much a win-win.

What was the question again?

That answers my question - you're just saying that the full range of realistically possible consequences still merit us withdrawing, which is what I was wondering.

I guess I just kind of fear the "bad end" of that range of possibilites enough to where I don't mind being there a while longer, regardless of what the Iraqi government wants.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Because if they try to pin the US forces with even more complicated rules of engagement, we risk even more casualties and unfortunate incidents.

At which point, the US government says, "If we get stuck with these restrictions, we will simply leave." If Iraq says, "Go ahead and leave." Then you call the troops in, land some planes, fly them all back, and let the rest sort itself out.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

At which point, the US government says, "If we get stuck with these restrictions, we will simply leave." If Iraq says, "Go ahead and leave." Then you call the troops in, land some planes, fly them all back, and let the rest sort itself out.

The problem with this is that Bush doesn't want to leave, so he would likely accept restrictions rather than have the troops come home.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Yes, but if they want that choice, who are we to tell them no?

WE'RE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DAMN IT!

But seriously, respecting the wishes of a "soverign" nation should of course be the default, unless that nation is dangerous to others or its citizens in some way (and people obviously have different ranges of acceptable "danger" before soveringty should be impacted).

A nation can be dangerous through its own acts, or through its weaknesses. And when others beyond the government stand to suffer from these weaknesses, it becomes a difficult decision.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I guessI just kind of fear the "bad end" of that range of possibilites enough to where I don't mind being there a while longer, regardless of what the Iraqi government wants.

What's this "bad end"? Bin Laden becomes President of Iraq and embarks on a program to develop a nuclear bomb and an intercontinental delivery system? Even then Iraq's basically no worse than Pakistan.

[Ksyrup]

I am all for us staying to honor a commitment to the Iraqi people, and to not have a specific withdrawal date because that is an artificial deadline that is not tied to any tangible benchmarks or results. My main focus on staying is because we are responsible for where they are today, and it would be a horrendous policy decision for a new administration to come in and simply say, "The previous administration screwed up by sending us to Iraq in the first place, so fuck y'all, we're out of here in 16 months, regardless of what is going on there." That's Obama's position. I am against that.

However, if the Iraqi government wants to absolve us of our responsibility and insists we leave on a specific date, that's their right and I would not feel responsible one bit if things disintegrated on them after we left. No way we should insist on staying longer than we are welcome there, absent some sort of anarchy or major instability.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I am all for us staying to honor a commitment to the Iraqi people, and to not have a specific withdrawal date because that is an artificial deadline that is not tied to any tangible benchmarks or results. My main focus on staying is because we are responsible for where they are today, and it would be a horrendous policy decision for a new administration to come in and simply say, "The previous administration screwed up by sending us to Iraq in the first place, so fuck y'all, we're out of here in 16 months, regardless of what is going on there." That's Obama's position. I am against that.

However, if the Iraqi government wants to absolve us of our responsibility and insists we leave on a specific date, that's their right and I would not feel responsible one bit if things disintegrated on them after we left. No way we should insist on staying longer than we are welcome there, absent some sort of anarchy or major instability.

I agree with all that, but do you think that Iraq is at the point of "major instability" right now? Certainly the most hard-core anti-war people always say that they are.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What's this "bad end"? Bin Laden becomes President of Iraq and embarks on a program to develop a nuclear bomb and an intercontinental delivery system? Even then Iraq's basically no worse than Pakistan.

I think an Iranian invasion of an unstable, insurgent-controled Iraq would be pretty darn bad. What if the insurgents win? Will the sympathetic element in Iran and elsewhere then try to rise up?

Shit could get ugly.

I could care less about an Iraqi civil war. I just fear that the stakes could be a lot higher than that.

The reasons the war was a bad idea are the same reasons we need to stay there.

[BrianD]

On the plus side - and worth mentioning again:

Originally Posted by article

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

My fear is that, as long as we are there, the various sides will be biding their time, even appearing to make nice. As soon as we leave, hell will break loose, be it in 6 months, 16 months, or 60 months.

I agree with this. If you've waited hundreds of years to try and avenge a perceived wrong, what's a couple years more?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

On the plus side - and worth mentioning again:

True. I think that some people can't bring themselves to admit how well things are currently going in Iraq, though this would be their best argument for leaving. Everything's divided politically, everyone has to be 100% left or right, 100% pro- or anti-Bush. We barely need to think anymore, just allign yourself with or against a broad idea and then enjoy the ride to the end.

[BrianD]

I do find it interesting that the anti-Iraq-war people are now calling for troops to leave since Iraq requested it and sort of gloss over the fact that they are requesting it because violence is down and they think they can handle their own business.

On the flip side, I'm sure pro-Iraq-war people will now be highlighting pockets of instability to push for continued involvement.

I'm just happy that things seem to be going well enough that troops can start thinking about being able to head home. And really, this could be a good thing for Bush. I don't believe we can ever truly succeed with our goals in Iraq, so Bush can now claim to be following Iraq's wishes with a withdrawl even though he doesn't think it is the right time and then say "I told you so" when the crap hits the fan over there.

[Tekneek]

By the sound of it, they are already slightly balking at the idea...

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

So, if Iraq were to say we want you out on X date, it seems the US government would say no (at least under this administration).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree with all that, but do you think that Iraq is at the point of "major instability" right now? Certainly the most hard-core anti-war people always say that they are.

Major instability? No. But I think things are far from perfect, and I have no doubt that if we have a definitive role and stay to achieve certain goals, things would be better. If they want to forego that opportunity in order to have us leave, then they are relieving us of our responsibility, and we're not simply cutting and running from a problem we created and didn't quite clean up.

[JPhillips]

"The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

Liar. We want to establish dozens of permanent bases. The whole problem is that the current admin wants to establish an indefinite presence of US troops.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Liar. We want to establish dozens of permanent bases. The whole problem is that the current admin wants to establish an indefinite presence of US troops.

I don't know about dozens of permanent bases, but we would definitely like a base in Iraq. A permanent base was what McCain was calling for with his 100 years comment.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

I think an Iranian invasion of an unstable, insurgent-controled Iraq would be pretty darn bad. What if the insurgents win? Will the sympathetic element in Iran and elsewhere then try to rise up?

Shit could get ugly.

I could care less about an Iraqi civil war. I just fear that the stakes could be a lot higher than that.

The reasons the war was a bad idea are the same reasons we need to stay there.

BTW Nostradomus predicted that WWIII would be started in this region by a muslim state. Kinda freaky that guy.

[Groundhog]

Yeah, that Nostradamus guy sure was good at predicting. Wasn't it supposed to start in 2002?

From brick to marble, the walls will be converted,
Seven and fifty peaceful years:
Joy to mankind, the aqueduct renewed,
Health, abundant fruits, joy and honey-making times.

So, 57 years following WWII, because, of course, he was talking about our time.

Of beyond the Black Sea and of the great Tartary,
A king comes who will see Gaul,
Piercing across Alania and Armenia,
And within Byzantium he will leave his bloody rod.

And here he is, very clearly, talking about some contemporary Islamic chieftan.

We then get pictures that, naturally, describe some kind of atomic attack (stars burning, two suns, etc.).

Oh noez!!!!1!

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

As it currently stands, Al-Qaeda is far more powerful and prevalent there than it ever was under Hussein.

Al-Qaeda was non-existent in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They poured in from Syria and Iran after he was overthrown and the country was in anarchy. Hussein was a secular dictator who was despised by Al-Qaeda before we invaded Iraq, although he became a somewhat sympathetic figure to them after the invasion.

[Flasch186]

not sure Nos and clear are generally used in the same sentences.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't know about dozens of permanent bases, but we would definitely like a base in Iraq. A permanent base was what McCain was calling for with his 100 years comment.

The reports I have read claim that a dozen or so permanent bases have been asked for on the US side, as well as immunity from prosecution for all American military and contractors. Some in the Iraqi government appear to be frustrated by the arrogance of those requests.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The reports I have read claim that a dozen or so permanent bases have been asked for on the US side, as well as immunity from prosecution for all American military and contractors. Some in the Iraqi government appear to be frustrated by the arrogance of those requests.

That's way less troops than we have in Germany or Japan.

I understand the concern about immunity - most American embassies will try to protect American citizens from foreign laws, especially those that might be more strict than our own, or criminalize different kinds of things.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BTW Nostradomus predicted that WWIII would be started in this region by a muslim state. Kinda freaky that guy.

Nostradomus actually predicted I'd drink three beers tonight. At least, that's how I read it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I am all for us staying to honor a commitment to the Iraqi people, and to not have a specific withdrawal date because that is an artificial deadline that is not tied to any tangible benchmarks or results. My main focus on staying is because we are responsible for where they are today, and it would be a horrendous policy decision for a new administration to come in and simply say, "The previous administration screwed up by sending us to Iraq in the first place, so fuck y'all, we're out of here in 16 months, regardless of what is going on there." That's Obama's position. I am against that.

However, if the Iraqi government wants to absolve us of our responsibility and insists we leave on a specific date, that's their right and I would not feel responsible one bit if things disintegrated on them after we left. No way we should insist on staying longer than we are welcome there, absent some sort of anarchy or major instability.

What Ksyrup said.

Oh or should I have just said

+1

?

I've been away too long.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

That's way less troops than we have in Germany or Japan.

I understand the concern about immunity - most American embassies will try to protect American citizens from foreign laws, especially those that might be more strict than our own, or criminalize different kinds of things.

I wasn't suggesting this was much different than the standard operating procedure of the US government. However, I completely understand the reaction of some in Iraq (and elsewhere in the region) to the concept. They already describe the continued presence of US troops as an occupation. As I suspected all along, they are not going to want US troops there one day longer than they must be there. I doubt the US will be able to use Iraq as a strategic military base of operations going into the future as they have other countries throughout the world.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I doubt the US will be able to use Iraq as a strategic military base of operations going into the future as they have other countries throughout the world.

I think you are probably right, and this is too bad. It would be nice to have a presence in the region, but I just don't see it happening. Hopefully our government will accept this somewhat graciously since I don't think there will be any way to change their minds.

[RomaGoth]

Although I feel that our presence was needed in the mideast for obvious reasons, I sincerely disagree with how it was done. Bush bungled this entire ordeal as he has so many other things. It is unfortunate, as we are perceived as a moronic nation when in fact, we are the opposite. Unfortunately, the world views you as your leader is viewed and we have had a string of complete and utter idiots in office.

With all that being said, I do believe we should withdraw. Our leadership is obviously clueless as how to actually accomplish anything in the region, thus we just make ourselves look idiotic and we waste billions of dollars that should be put to better use elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents.

[SteveMax58]

I'm not so certain that the Iraqi government (and even the NS advisor who is in the article) truly want the US to have zero presence in Iraq. They may truly have issues with the volume and capacity of the presence, but not the presence of US troops itself. It serves as the best deterrant for an Iranian destabilization and/or invasion plan.

I think it helps them politically (within the region and naturally, in Iraq) to make these types of statements...but in the end, the US cannot stay there any longer than the Iraqi government truly wants them there. The US has no political, legal, or otherwise grounds to continue basing themselves there...and in the end, even Bush will not violate Iraq's sovereign wishes.

My feeling is that they (Iraq) are trying to garner some degree of good will from Iran (and others), but that they are going to remain cautious of Iran's intentions with regards to Iraq, hence why I doubt Iraq will ever formally request the removal of all US troops. I see nothing wrong with this, nor does that infer any ill will towards the US by taking this approach.

Telling the US to remove all troops(in any timeframe or milestone) would be foolish for them to truly want unless they do not believe Iran has had any direct responsibility in destabilizing and killing civilians in Iraq since the US invasion, and have completely forgotten their previous war with them.