Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable.
by Riley 2

I would bet there will b e significant money offered under the table to Iraqi officials. You know this has caused Bush and Companies considerable grief. How they can expect anything less is a mystery to me though.

Iraq will be a hot spot for years just like the West Band and Gaza is in the P/I conflict.

Persons like Wilson and others who think this will just finally end in peace with no hard feelings and no repercusions are in La La Land.

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 15 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

___________

Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable.
by Loree

I posted on this very subject a couple of days ago.

Sometimes I have to question the mentality of the citizens of this country. For example, if Iraq tells the US to get the hell out, BY THE END OF THE YEAR, or just before Bush leaves office, just think....McCain AND the Neocon administration could claim (by spinning and twisting) that the 'war is over, and we won...we liberated a country (never mind that we tore hell out of it, killed tens of thousands of INNOCENT men, women and children, and displaced millions!), and that Bush deserves all the credit for the 'victory'. People are dumb enough to not even stop to think that Bush STARTED the war, with an invasion of a sovereign nation. They will go no further back than the fact that it's OVER, and Bush is claiming victory.

It would be a BIG boost for McCain, if our troops were coming home, under Bush.

One thing for sure, both Bush and McCain will figure out a way to 'look good' even if they get their asses deported!

Iraq has made no secret of its desire
by larbabe
to remove the U.S. occupation from its soil. If only Bush/McCain would listen! War profiteering is the only reason we've stayed in it this long. Quite frankly, I don't care whose leadership this occurs under.
Reading between the lines
by RCH1


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.


This really isn't significantly different from what the US and Iraq have been discussing for some time. The critical "benchmarks" linked to the withdrawal is the successful turnover of all of the Provinces within Iraq. At such time, US Forces would reliquish control of the cities to Iraqi forces and withdraw from the cities.

The US would remain for some time there after to provide logistical support to Iraqi Forces in regional bases whose status would be reviewed every 3-5 years.

Ron

Agree With Ron
by Zam-Zam

Many have complained for some time that the Iraqis were not "stepping up to the plate", not doing thier part to secure their future. If that was true, it seems to be changing now. This is good news. A timetable for a gradual draw-down seems to be in order, providing that security and stability can be maintained.

For the terrorists, this has to be a bit disheartening.

Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable.
by MaryAnne

Thanks,Riley!

I told TB that very thing this morning. He said I was wrong :o)

Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable.
by Arkady

Why not have a public vote in Iraq on US withdrawal? If the public votes in favor of the US staying on for a year or two, that would marginalize the insurgents in the minds of most Iraqis, since they would be clearly trying to bring about an outcome opposed by the Iraqi public. That would be a valuable propaganda victory for the occupation, in a war that is ultimately a public relations conflict. On the other hand, if the public vote favored a withdrawal as soon as possible, that would let us know our presence was no longer wanted, and we could go find something more productive to do with the vast national resources we've been spending there.

Putting it to a Public Vote.
by RCH1


Because Iraq has a "representative" form of government, negotiation of the "time table" with ratification by the Parliament seems the most appropriate method. Hopefully the parliamentary representatives will reflect the desires of those whom they represent.

Ron

View as RSS news feed in XML