The conditions in Iraq are moving towards favoring a withdrawal, not stopping it.

The operation in Mosul showed that !) the Iraqi army is supplanting US troops in important missions; 2) they are more effective at interacting with and gaining intelligence from the civilian population that Americans have been.

These are two reasons to go ahead with withdrawal on Obama's current timeline, which ends 2 years from now. If the gain in Iraqi military and government confidence and action continue, the stage is set for beginning to withdraw shortly after January 20th. The most likely 'refinement' would come after that withdrawal starts.

General Petraeus is smart. He knows what's coming. He got a few more 'surge' months from Bush, which he may have to give back to Obama. But he WILL make it work. Obama WILL start withdrawing.

If, under the mission of withdrawal, Petaeus has to slow it down or temporarily stop because of conditions on the ground, the American people would certainly understand that. After all the mission is to withdraw responsibly and in a way to protect US troops. The difference is in the mission.

All this trying to get Obama nailed on contradictions is counter productive and without merit.

Then why wouldn't an improved ground situation also help McCain in his claim that the 'surge' worked?

I'm not saying it did or didn't, but he can make the claim.

So if McCain gets elected and he pulls out of Iraq early based on 'improvements on the ground' would you praise that, or simply claim he was bailing to pander to the population and going back on his earlier promises?

What Obama 'got nailed on' was basing his campaign the last two years on leaving Iraq with in a specific 16 month timeline. Then he said well, maybe not that specific.

That's what Obama got nailed on, nothing more.

Yes, I think the surge is working in bringing down violence and the Iraqi government's starting to move. So what? Let McCain claim he started it. Then McCain has no excuse NOT to begin withdrawing.

The issue is still when to withdraw. Obama needs to take it past this 'is the surge working' trap.

For the same reason the surge is working, Obama will begin withdrawing after Jan. 20th. Petraeus knows how to deliver. He reads the situation, too.

Today Reuters reported that Maliki is calling for a timetable as part of the renewal of the UN mandate which allows the US to be in Iraq. That mandate expires at the end of Dec.

If Maliki sets a timetable of his own or requires us to set one before signing off on the mandate...the exact timetable will be negotiated with Iraq.

Kind of solves the whole problem...for Obama and McCain.

Just because the situation is improving does not mean it favors a withdrawal. You are assuming the end goal is withdrawal, but that is not an end of the mission in Iraq. The end goal is to stabalize Iraq. A lack of failure is not an indicator of success. Withdrawal is a failure, stabilization and withdrawal is a success. McCain's Iraq policy stresses success first, Obama's stresses abandoning the mission.

To put it another way, simply because you get a D- on a test does not mean you don't need to study anymore.

Well, if the surge has stabilized things then the withdrawal can proceed. :)

The surge isn't stabilizing the situation, its improving it. Once again, stabilization means no running gun battles in the street. Simply because there are LESS running gun battles in the streets does not mean there are NO running gun battles in the streets.

Simply because Iraq is MORE stable does not mean its ACCEPTABLY stable.

Wow. No one is even interested in Iraq advocating for a time table.

Simply because Iraq is MORE stable does not mean its ACCEPTABLY stable.

Acceptible to whom?

No running gun battles is great and it looks like the Maliki gov't may have been putting the time it has bought them to very good use.

BAGHDAD, July 5 (UPI) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has cautioned the United States against using Iraqi territory to carry out attacks on Iran.

Maliki's statements came in a Friday video link meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush, al-Alam reported.

Maliki said he was concerned about military pressure aimed at Iran regarding the country's nuclear activities, adding he would not permit U.S. forces to use Iraqi land, airspace and waterways as a means for attacking states in the region.

He said the Mideast is in a "fragile" state and "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."

Maliki said diplomacy would be the most effective way to resolve conflict surrounding Iran's nuclear activities.

If it's stable enough for the democratically elected Iraqi gov't who are we to argue with them?

They are happy with Iranian behavior. The UAE just forgave their entire debt. China has made noises it might do so as well. The Saudi's forgave their debt, kind of.

China will invest billions in rebuilding. So will Dubai. So will India...Jun 12, 2008; “As a friend of Iraq, India is committed to its reconstruction in all fields ...

Iraq is free and with so many rich countries waiting to help them out we can say for reals - mission accomplished and come home. Victors.

And maybe China will forgive our debt too...unless they need it to build those refineries.

Acceptable to those who conquered Iraq: The United States. The Iraqis lost final say over their pre-stabilized country when the US military informed the Iraqis they were taking over.

The Iraqi government may be democratically elected, but so is the Serb government. Does that mean NATO should leave Kosovo so the Serbs can sweep in and "liquidate" the Albanians? Should the US leave Iraq so the Shiite death squads can sweep in and "liquidate" the Sunnis? Or vise versa? Zimbabwe has a democratic government, does that mean they are free to do as they wish without anyone saying different?

The point is that the Iraqis can suggest anything they want, but the US is the country that conquered Iraq and it is the country that gets to decide when Iraq is fixed. And Iraq isn't fixed. And it wont be fixed until the President says, "its fixed".

NYT interview - Published: January 28, 2005

President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.

White House web site - transcript of press briefing 5/24/07

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.

You do know The Status of Forces agreement expires in Dec. Since the Iraqi government needs to actually sign the agreement, constructing an agreement that they, well, agree with is part of the game.

The Iraqi government rejected the ideas that the U.S. should fully control Iraqi airspace, that U.S. personnel and contractors would be immune to Iraqi prosecution, and that the U.S. would have control over 58 military bases in Iraq.

The U.S. diplomatic contingent is preparing a second draft that would ALLOW Iraq to prosecute U.S. contractors.

But you are mixing your metaphores - so to speak.

The Iraqis lost final say over their pre-stabilized country when the US military informed the Iraqis they were taking over.

I guess they were supposed to recognize the information when it came in the shape of a bunker buster. Only I thought we were 'informing' Saddam and the Baathists. Ooops.

Zimbabwe has a democratic government, does that mean they are free to do as they wish without anyone saying different?

What planet are you on? The answer is a resounding YES!

After mobilizing and deploying the ruling party's machinery of repression and intimidation to punish Zimbabweans for failing to hand him a victory, President Mugabe announced that no vote tally could ever spur him to leave power.

This winner of a one-man runoff election, was sworn in as president for a sixth term Sunday. No one is saying jack fucking shit to him.

Maliki is just cowering in his hidey hole - in between trade and peace talks with Iran, Dubai, India, China and British Petroleum and Japan. If we were conquerors Maliki wouldn't be negotiating business deals.

The UN mandate expires in Dec and if we can't get it signed China pulls the plug. No more financing and a not so favorable re-payment plan.

the country that gets to decide is the one loaning us the money to stay there.

until the President says, "its fixed".

The president who said we would leave if asked to?

Tally Ho.

I know this is a big shock to you, but there is a difference between words and actions in politics. Especially with this administration. Don't you notice how the language changes every time the situation changes?

You should watch the action on the ground, and note that regardless of all the things that have been said about withdrawal's and timetables that two things have occurred: 1) A timetable for withdrawal has been shot down EVERY time its been proposed, 2) The surge has put MORE US troops in Iraq then there were a year ago. So if anything, actions on the ground dictate that events are moving in the OPPOSITE direction of what you propose will happen.

You have to learn that there is strategic planning, and then there is the spin that helps make that planning palpable to the public. Notice how McCain was attacked when he proposed a long term presence in Iraq? And you wonder why Bush wont just come out and say "We are there and we will stay there until we feel like leaving, Iraqis be damned". Because it would kind of go against the whole message he has been pitching since 2002. And the White House's commitment to their pre-invasion rhetoric has been commendable. But thats just it, there is a difference between reality and rhetoric.

The US is not micromanaging Iraq, it is merely the caretaker, it conducts its own business, the US just looks over its shoulder and keeps it from doing anything too radical (Eg: Every major oil contract in Iraq has been awarded to Western companies). And China is not financing anything of consequence in Iraq. US debts to China accounts for less than 2% of the US National Debt. For some reason this whole "US being sold to foreigners" has been drummed up by xenophobic natavists like Lou Dobbs. And everyone has bought into it.

I'm not the least bit shocked that the President has been promulgating a lie since the wars inception.

The earlier timetable plans were shot down - however they were American proposals. Iraq is quite probably going to require a time table/date certain (use whatever language suits you) be inserted into the new accords along with their right to prosecute Americans and a pledge of no use of Iraqi air or land to launch attackes against Iran.

We have our rhetoric. They have theirs. We have plans. They have plans. We made deals. They made deals. They just aren't always with each other.

As for American contracting large U.S. companies won the bulk of the $20 billion worth of reconstruction contracts funded by the military.

Non-U.S. investors who have had prewar experience in Iraq are now making up huge chunks of the investments.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce in Iraq:

"The private investments that come from the USA are generally individual or institutional investors — not American corporations, Brinkley said. U.S. investors, for example, are part of a $120 million deal to build a hotel in the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi government offices are located.

Americans lead other nations in the number of exports to Iraq, but other nations have ramped up trade. China doubled the number of exports to Iraq this year.

China is now Iraq's third-largest trade partner behind the USA and Turkey, according to Global Trade Information Services, a firm that tracks trade statistics."

New investments by American industry is lagging.

The US is not micromanaging Iraq, it is merely the caretaker

I thought we were its conquerors...

BBC Reuters July 2, 2008

For almost two years, Washington and the large international oil companies have been cajoling, encouraging, and even threatening Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani to deliver an oil law that will allow them back into the country on long-term agreements that give them a share of any oil produced.

So far, Iraq has said no. Thanks. But they did say:

June 30, 2008: 2:18 PM EDT (CNN)

Iraq's oil minister said the ministry will invite the 35 qualified international companies --- which includes BP, Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) -- to prepare their bids over the next two weeks. The contracts could go into effect by next year, but Shahrastani said it will take several more years before oil production is increased.

"We hope in 2013 through this first bidding course to increase production in these fields by 1.5 million barrels per day, in addition to our daily average production rate during the last five years," he said.

These will be short term contracts with no revenue sharing.

Jun 4, 2008 ... China to float 20b yuan treasury bonds. (Xinhua) ... The public can buy the bonds from June 10 to 30 at the retailing outlets of 39 ...Any evidence that China was pulling out would risk setting off an unstoppable stampede, which is why such a policy would never be announced. It holds the world's biggest pool of resrves, followed by Japan.

China is financing us - why would you think of it in traditional bank loans...they buy/hold our treasury bonds along with being given rights of investment and trade deals etc The same "language changing" guys at the White House are changing alot more languages. If they lie about Iraq as you submit why wouldn't they lie about it's financing?

I happen to think the strategic planning is happening - on all sides. Iraq will not sell us it's only asset on our terms.

Reality may be that Iraq has spent this surge time doing what it is supposed to be doing - taking care of itself.

Bush wont just come out and say "We are there and we will stay there until we feel like leaving, Iraqis be damned". Because it would kind of go against the whole message

Which would explain why so few countries were interested in joining us on our little exercise in nation building...they knew it was spin...from the get go.

The military contracts have been awarded - to US comapanies. And are done.

The private and Iraqi government contracts - whole new ball game.

• guardian.co.uk,
• Monday June 30, 2008
• Article history

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.

The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.

Like I said, a week ago all new contracts on oil went to Western companies, contracts drafted for Iraq by the State Department. The US is caretaking for the Iraqi government. And as for China, like I said, they own less than 2% of the US debt. That includes bonds and notes and EVERYTHING the US government borrows from foreigners for whatever reason.

And I don't know where your getting this info that China is the third largest trading partner of Iraq. According to Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook China is not even in the top 5 of import or export partners with Iraq for the years 2007 (which is the last full year for which they would have that kind of data). And even if they are, the US still makes up 50% exports and 12% of imports, so Chinese trade would still be at most 1/5 of American trade. Also, the Chinese can't sell off their reserves of American currency because oil can only be purchases in American dollars. As long as the Saudis and everyone only accepts dollars then China needs its reserves to buy oil, should OPEC switch to the Euro then China could liquidate its reserves. But if OPEC does that then the US has bigger problems than China.

Once again the Chinese boogeyman is a strawman.

Finally, as for any timetable in the new Iraq agreement, don't worry. The administration doesn't plan to sell out its own mission in Iraq. The Iraqis have precious little bargaining power in the matter, it just has to look like a real negotiation.

• guardian.co.uk,
• Monday June 30, 2008
• Article history

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today.

June 30, 2008 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's oil minister Monday opened international bidding on six oil fields that could increase the country's oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day.

But the oil ministry continues to negotiate short-term no-bid contracts with several U.S. and European oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, Chevron Corp., and BP -- a step recently criticized by two U.S. lawmakers.

Oil Minister Hussein Shahrastani announced Monday that 35 international oil companies can bid on long-term contracts for redeveloping the six oil fields, as well as two natural gas fields.

So the Guardian says they were to be awarded.

CNN says they are still being negotiated.

However it would seem that Hunt Oil has one signed - with Kurdistan.

NYT By JAMES GLANZ and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. Published: July 3, 2008

Bush administration officials knew that a Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush was planning to sign an oil deal with the regional Kurdistan government that ran counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central government, a Congressional committee has concluded.

United States policy is to warn companies that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law and to strengthen Iraq’s central government. The Kurdistan deal, by ceding responsibility for writing contracts directly to a regional government, infuriated Iraqi officials. But State Department officials did nothing to discourage the deal and in some cases appeared to welcome it, the documents show.

The company, Hunt Oil of Dallas, signed the deal with Kurdistan’s semiautonomous government last September. Its chief executive, Ray L. Hunt, a close political ally of President Bush, briefed an advisory board to Mr. Bush on his contacts with Kurdish officials before the deal was signed.

In an e-mail message released by the Congressional committee, a State Department official in Washington, briefed by a colleague about the impending deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government, wrote: “Many thanks for the heads up; getting an American company to sign a deal with the K.R.G. will make big news back here. Please keep us posted.”

The release of the documents comes as the administration is defending help that United States officials provided in drawing up a separate set of no-bid contracts, still pending, between Iraq’s Oil Ministry in Baghdad and five major Western oil companies to provide services at other Iraqi oil fields.

In the no-bid contracts, the administration said it had provided what it called purely technical help writing the contracts. The United States played no role in choosing the companies, the administration has said.

Disclosure of those contracts has provided substantial fuel to critics of the Iraq war, both in the United States and abroad, who contend that the enormous Iraqi oil reserves were a motivation for the American-led invasion — an assertion the administration has repeatedly denied.

Iraq’s oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, has condemned the Kurdistan deal as illegal because it was not approved by Iraq’s central government and was struck without an oil law, which has still not been passed.

After the deal was signed last year, a senior State Department official in Baghdad criticized it, saying, “We believe these contracts have needlessly elevated tensions between the K.R.G. and the national government of Iraq.”

The State Department said Wednesday that it had discouraged the deal. Hunt officials declined to comment, and Kurdish government officials said there was no impropriety.

The State Department told Hunt that “we continue to advise all companies that they incur significant political and legal risk by signing contracts” before then, wrote Jeffrey T. Bergner, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the department, in one of the documents made public on Wednesday.

"Chinese can't sell off their reserves of American currency because oil can only be purchases in American dollars."

As of June 30, 2006 China had purchased $700 billion in US long-term assets. A huge and growing category of purchase has been the agency bond. These are bonds made of loans -- often home mortgage loans -- sold to government sponsored enterprises, or agencies, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In other words, they are US mortgages.

One statistic in the financial marketplace bares this out most of all: In 2002, the total Chinese investment in U.S. agency mortgage-backed securities was just over $100 million. By June 2006, this number had grown to over $107 billion -- a nearly 1,000-fold increase in less than 5 years.

-- Alfonso Jackson US HUD Secretary May 23,

Updated 6/17/2008 6:56 AM TOP EXPORTERS TO IRAQ

January through April (in millions):

United States: $737

Turkey: $648

China: $358

Thailand: $110

South Korea: $102

Source: Global Trade Information Services

China is now Iraq's third-largest trade partner behind the USA and Turkey, according to Global Trade Information Services, a firm that tracks trade statistics.

don't worry. The administration doesn't plan to sell out its own mission in Iraq. The Iraqis have precious little bargaining power in the matter...

I guess we'll wait have to wait and see. The Iraqi's have the oil and they have Iran to bargain with plus a shitload of trading partners who can't wait to give them money, goods and services. If Iranian Army rolls across the border to defend Iraqi oil fields - at the request of Iraq - I guess we'll just bomb the oil fields....the whole point of the war.

CNN says they are still being negotiated.

Shall we just assume they are going to those Western companies? It has been forecast as such for some time now, and judging by the outrage its generating we can assume its a done deal. The contracts have been drawn up. Just need to dot the i's and cross the t's.

China is now Iraq's third-largest trade partner behind the USA and Turkey, according to Global Trade Information Services, a firm that tracks trade statistics.

If you read your own words you'll notice GTIS titles its numbers "Top Exporters to Iraq", so China is not the 3rd largest trading partner, it is the third largest exporter to Iraq. In 2006 The US was the 3rd largest exporter to Iraq and the largest importer of Iraqi goods, accounting for almost 50% of Iraqi exports. So you are telling me two things then: 1) Iraq has become ever more dependent on the US today than in 2006, as the US is now Iraq's biggest import AND export partner. 2) Iraq is on the road to success, as more non-regional countries are ramping up investments 3) The US now accounts for probably 40% of the TOTAL trade (both imports and exports) that Iraq does. While China accounts for only single digit numbers. And seeing as how traditionally most of Iraq's exports have been oil I would say that exports to the US will most likely increase with oil output.

As of June 30, 2006 China had purchased $700 billion in US long-term assets.

In lew of these numbers I will update my calculations to the most recent numbers I can find.

<link>

FYI: The public debt= securities including Treasury debt, U.S. agency debt, U.S. corporate debt, and U.S. equities.

"As of October 2007, China’s Treasury securities holdings were $388 billion (My note: 502 as of April 2008), accounting for 16.8% of total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury securities and making China the second largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries after Japan. From March to October 2007, China’s Treasury holdings declined by about 8%."

"A gradual decline in China’s holdings of U.S. assets would not be expected to have a negative impact on the U.S. economy (since it be matched by increased U.S. exports and a lower trade deficit)."

A rapid sell off would have negative short term effects on the United States and would likely result in a large financial loss for China, as well as stunting its economic growth. "The dollar deprecation would not cause a recession since it would ultimately lead to a trade surplus (or smaller deficit), which expands aggregate demand"

" For example, Japan gradually reduced its Treasury holding from $699.4 billion to $582.2 billion from August 2004 to September 2007, a decline of $117.2 billion. This shift appears to have had little noticeable impact on the U.S, economy."

My Note: The business done on US asset markets EACH DAY is valued at more than the TOTAL holdings of the Chinese.

Chinese sell offs would be offset by new trading partners, as the US consumes 30% of Chinese imports a sudden decline in the US dollar would be bad in the short term for China too. The Chinese are economically dependent on the US for economic growth. A Chinese pullout would lead to a decrease in American imports and China would need to find new markets while the US would need to find new investors. (An easier task with increased interest rates for the US than for China.)

If Iranian Army rolls across the border to defend Iraqi oil fields - at the request of Iraq - I guess we'll just bomb the oil fields....the whole point of the war.

The Iranian army is no match for even the Gulf states, its obsolete, the only trouble that the Iranian army can cause in Iraq is asymmetrical. The US could repulse an Iranian attack with 50,000 troops, never mind the more than 100,000 they have on the ground now. An Iranian conflict with US forces currently in the Gulf would be over in a matter of hours, with a conquest of Iran taking a few months, worst case scenario.