U.S. agrees to set withdrawal date with Iraq

[Karamazov]

BAGHDAD — The United States and Iraq are nearing completion of negotiations on a security agreement that would pull American troops out of Iraqi cities by next July and foresees all U.S. combat troops gone from Iraq by 2011, according to two Iraqi officials who are familiar with the negotiations.

"The tactical team is finished and it's a closed deal, but remember that we've been through this before and every time we close a deal it's reopened," said a senior official who's been participating in the talks.

The official said that the deal, once completed, would be perhaps the most restrictive agreement the United States had with a country where it had troops.

"We've seen all the status of forces agreements with other countries," the official said. "This is the best that the Americans have conceded."

Under the agreement, the United States would pull its troops from Iraqi cities and onto American bases in Iraq by June 30, 2009, according to the Iraqi officials familiar with the negotiations.

The U.S. agreement to set a specific date for the end of American operations in Iraqi cities and the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces marks a major turnaround for the Bush administration, which until last month had refused to discuss a timetable for withdrawal.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The exact date is still uncertain, but given the hesitancy of the Administration, withdrawal is possibly imminent, since the only hold up were fears of permanent bases in Iraq.

Like many, civilian and military personnel alike, I'm still rather ambivalent of Iraq's future. The reasons for invading were fallacious and now for the first time, casualties in Afghanistan exceed those of Iraq, as of recently, when victory was thought to have been achieved on that front. The military has been having to make do with a lot of things due to an unworkable foreign policy.

It isn't the first time the U.S. has participated in facilitating a friendly government, but it also isn't the first time that it had back-fired.

[jadefalcon]

This is good- things are working out and we need to come home- training the army went faster than I would expect. I fully support the troops, the surge, and their efforts to date since 2003 in Iraq, but it is time to come home boys.

[Tocsin]

It IS an election year in the United States, in case anybody has forgotten.

Nothing looks so good at election time as victory - even if it is just a fabrication.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Yep, I suspect that this is a fabricated election-year "victory". For fuck's sake- they're PAYING the Sunni militias to keep quiet. Whether we stay another 16 months or another 16 years, the whole place will to got hell as soon as we leave.

Tens of thousands of lives (or hundreds of thousands- depending on whose numbers you believe) and trillions of dollars have been wasted on one little man's ego.

[blueback]

I figure that we are in Iraq because the peak of oil production is fast approaching. It makes sense to have a military foothold in the middle east. It makes sense to bore the American public with the fact that we are fighting in the middle east. It makes sense to label everyone who interferes with America's plan in the region a terrorist.

It would be a very logical setup for a resource war. We already have a lot of troops who know how to fight there. The public is used to the idea that we are fighting there. We have already established that anyone who interferes with anything we are trying to do is a terrorist. That would make a refocus from "spreading democracy" to "ensuring a stable supply of oil to maintain the world economy" relatively easy to do. As long as we keep things over there stirred up enough we can remain in a position to exert military control over the largest remaining supply of crude in the world.

I don't think that is a good idea, but I do think that the neocons think it is a good idea.

[zibber]

blueback: Very lucid and scary post. I hadn't even considered the possibility of an actual resource war, but it's quite plausible if you consider how effectively the neocons have shaped the climate in the west. I think a lot of Americans could be talked into supporting that.

[phantasma]

^ You never considered that it's really a resource war? The biggest reason the US has to stay in the Middle East is to secure oil rights. If the war were totally about establishing peace, it probably would have been concentrated elsewhere.

Also, the government has been taling about setting a witdrawal date since before last December. It's been said so many times that it's losing its weight.

[Karamazov]

^ You never considered that it's really a resource war? The biggest reason the US has to stay in the Middle East is to secure oil rights. If the war were totally about establishing peace, it probably would have been concentrated elsewhere.

Also, the government has been taling about setting a witdrawal date since before last December. It's been said so many times that it's losing its weight.

True, but nothing as definite as what has been talked about thus far. The only reasons the negotiations dragged on concerned issues of sovereignty and permanent military installations. So with this report, withdrawal of all combat troops may be expected within the time frame of about 5 to 6 years.

Naturally, the U.S. will still be a major influence in the region for many reasons (Resources, as stated above, amongst one of them) As long as people are still willing to vote based on their unsubstantiated fears, along with Washington playing on those same anxieties, we will continue to be there indefinitely.

[Antisocialite]

Finally.

[Snowdragon]

Tens of thousands of lives (or hundreds of thousands- depending on whose numbers you believe) and trillions of dollars have been wasted on one little man's ego.

That's the ONLY reason why we're in this mess. It's all about W's ego and his need to impress daddy.

[Claptonian]

That's the ONLY reason why we're in this mess. It's all about W's ego and his need to impress daddy.

You know, I utterly depise George W. Bush and the War in Iraq, but the above quote represents a ridiculously shortsighted point of view. I think you're vastly underestimating just how much corruption, self-service and special interests are involved in American politics. Big issues are rarely "all about" one thing.

Your statement also implies that the entire problem rests on one person, which I think is a dangerous point of view. It implies that if "the right person" were in office, bad things wouldn't happen. This masks the truth that there is no "right person" to run such a horrible system. Put someone with a smaller ego and no daddy issues in the office and horrifying things will still occur. Remember that both Clinton and Bush the First did horrible things in Iraq, too.

The way things are setup now, only power-hungry, manipulative, dishonest egomaniacs can become president, and they are immediately surrounded by equally power-hungry, manipulative, dishonest egomaniacs. It doesn't matter if it's George W., F.D.R. or Barack Obama.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[blueback]

That's the ONLY reason why we're in this mess. It's all about W's ego and his need to impress daddy.
So you're claiming that W is a mastermind? He set the whole thing up and kept it running all on his own? That is far more credit than I've ever heard anyone give him.

You are actually exhibiting the Relational Bias. It is when team performance is attributed to the leader, even when the leader has absolutely no effect on team performance. It's a common psychological mistake, like the Attribution Error.

Try leading a few teams and you will quickly realize that leaders have very little effect on the eventual results. This is, of course, a team of relatively autonomous (self-interested) individuals and not a sports team where it's pretty much a dictatorship. The most a leader can do is set a positive environment in which the members of the team get everything done.

I think that is exactly what W did.

I think that whether he realized it or not (I'm betting not), his administration created an environment in which the occupation was horribly bungled. If they had done it right, they would have had to leave too early when the Iraqies got back on their feet. They allowed unqualified people to get important jobs, guaranteeing that they would hire more unqualified people. They took all the planning out of the hands of the trained experts and had it done by a few ideologically motivated neophytes. Etc.

There were several decisions that make absolutely no sense from the perspective of trying to actually bring democracy to Iraq (or whatever reason you are adhering to at the time) but make a lot of sense if you want to keep Iraq in chaos. Failing to secure any buildings, besides the oil ministry, long enough for looters to strip them bare. Disbanding all Bathist organizations and the entire military and police force, basically everyone with legitimate organization and weapons training. Failing to consult any of the dozens of recognized experts in terrorism, insurgency warfare, Islam, middle east culture, etc until well after the "war" was officially screwed up.

I don't think W planned any of those specifically, but he (his administration) did establish the conditons under which they were inevitable. If it hadn't been those mistakes it would have been others equally bad.

[phantasma]

It's hard to tell exactly how smart George W is exactly. For all we know, he might be playing stupid in order to give him less accountability. And yes, many fail to realize that the leader has only so much effect on the end result. His staff and Congress are as much to blame as much as he is.

[mxdntz]

blueback: Very lucid and scary post. I hadn't even considered the possibility of an actual resource war, but it's quite plausible if you consider how effectively the neocons have shaped the climate in the west. I think a lot of Americans could be talked into supporting that.
Do you seriously believe that we care about liberating citizens of the world or that we were scared of Saddam? It's always about money, opening up markets for American Biz and natural resources. You should read Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer of the NYTimes, in his words
"Regime change" did not begin with the administration of George W. Bush, but has been part of U.S. foreign policy for more than one hundred years. Starting with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 and continuing into our own time, the United States has not hesitated to overthrow governments that stood in the way of its political and economic goals. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is the latest, though perhaps not the last, example of the dangers inherent in these operations. Foreign correspondent Kinzer tells the stories of the audacious politicians, spies, military commanders, and business executives who took it upon themselves to depose monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers in fourteen countries, including Cuba, Iran, South Vietnam, Chile, and Iraq. He also shows that the U.S. government has often pursued these operations without understanding the countries involved; as a result, many of them have had disastrous long-term consequencesThere is a direct correlation between energy consumption per capita and standard of living so I'm sure we will continue to "shock and awe" countries who are rich in energy resources. My money is on Iran being next. Agree with it or not, there really isn't much we can do about it, all politicians are whores or seriously dilusioned and believe that we are actually spreading democracy. We have it so good, because others have it so bad. Better us than someone else though, at least we are not commies.

Also, Iraq now has politicians who have to appear to be on the side of the public so of course they are talking deadlines.

[Karamazov]

There were several decisions that make absolutely no sense from the perspective of trying to actually bring democracy to Iraq (or whatever reason you are adhering to at the time) but make a lot of sense if you want to keep Iraq in chaos. Failing to secure any buildings, besides the oil ministry, long enough for looters to strip them bare. Disbanding all Bathist organizations and the entire military and police force, basically everyone with legitimate organization and weapons training. Failing to consult any of the dozens of recognized experts in terrorism, insurgency warfare, Islam, middle east culture, etc until well after the "war" was officially screwed up.


Precisely. George W. Bush only helped facilitate the conditions needed to allow neo-conservatives to germinate their influence in foreign policy. With 9/11 came the perfect opportunity for a much bigger enterprise in trying to establish a capitalist democracy in the heart of the middle east, for not only strategic reasons but economic ones as well. The administration cultivated an environment in which only those loyal to the President would get advancement and be put into positions of power, regardless of experience.

With the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, De-Baathification of the civil service, bungling Iraq's Oil Revenue and etc, Paul Bremer left a substantial number of people unemployed, bitter and armed.

It was doomed to fail. (not that it had a chance)

[Dreamer]

With the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, De-Baathification of the civil service, bungling Iraq's Oil Revenue and etc, Paul Bremer left a substantial number of people unemployed, bitter and armed.

It was doomed to fail. (not that it had a chance)

And you think that the invaders leaving in place the tools of the ancien regime would have achieved...?

The US have pretty much sealed their faith. W have pulled the same stunt LBJ did on Nixon guys. Islam:1, USA:0.