[...] this, as much as the success going on in Iraq right now, explains why Maliki is calling for a timetable for withdrawal, based upon the situation on the ground looking [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

New items in the past few days that should be emphasized:

I.
Maliki no longer wants the massive and long-term bases presence of Bush (and McCain). He has walked away from its laid foundations in the document he signed called the Declaration of Principles in 2007 –that would have lead to a SOFA and SFA.

II.
Maliki is now calling for a ‘Memo. of Understanding’ that would not amount to a treaty of alliance or any permanent relationship. ‘Missing links’ (Badger) translates an Hayat piece and explains that:

Al Hayat cites a “prominent political source” who says the scheduled-withdrawal concept (via a “Memorandum of Understanding”) in fact has met with the approval of the American side, for two reasons: (1) They don’t like the risk of an abrupt change of policy under a putative Democratic administration, so this will be a smoothing mechanism; and (2) They aren’t keen on the idea of a battle between Bush and Congress in the final months of his administration.
http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2008/07/alhayat-prominent-political-source-told.html

III.
If this is true, Bush has backed away from the SOFA and accepted Maliki’s interim agreement. This is truly a significant change. The next president will be doing a SOFA.

IV.
What is Maliki getting out of the deal? He’s told Bush that Iraqi territory is not to be used for an attack against Iran by US forces, and there will be no US long-term presence. He appears to want to be sure that it was understood that this prohibition includes Iraqi facilities and air space.

V.
Timetables now are really irrelevant. Their discussion is now primarily political theater due to the coming Iraqi elections and they will be ‘groomed’ later in the SOFA.

VI.
It is now a fact that Sistani is now actively engaged in this process.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MataHarley

Thanks. I was in the process of transferring it when I got your heads up. I could have said it much more succinctly, but I was in a rambling mood. Glad you got something out of it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yo, Yonason… did you mean to post this to the AWG thread? You may wish to cut/paste and add it there. It’s a bizarre, but strangely logical analysis that made me grin end to end

He took care of it!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

post deleted by author – entered in wrong thread

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There might be another element to this as well. Could Maliki be looking to cement in stone a U.S. committment to Iraq longer than Obama’s promise to get out of Iraq in 16 months?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Of course, the MSM is also not reporting the full story. There is also this:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/07/ap_iraq_timetable_070708/

“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.”

H.T. Murdoc (http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/005770.html)

So, as Obi-Wan would say, “This is not the timeline you’re looking for.” The MSM is trying to point to this proposal and claim that the Iraqis want exactly what the democrats have been pushing for, but they have NO desire to force the US out of the country before they are good and ready.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yesterday I saw an Obama campaign advisor say Sen O was for a timetable, but “conditions based” [as if that's something new, or unique, and different from the Bush plan for the past 5yrs]

I laughed…then I frowned when I came to my senses and realized that Democrats will take his schpeel hook, line, and sinker. Sen Obama could give a Bush speech, claim it was his, and get rounding support for it…just because he’s got a D and isn’t GWB.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Zimbabwe is proof that it just takes one bad leader or charismatic figure to reverse things. Nobody knows if things will reverse. Fear of a reversal shouldn’t be U.S. policy. That’s the same fear mothers that baby their 18+ year-old children have. The U.S. should be listening more to the Iraqi government and letting that government decide it’s fate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yeah, perspective is always dependent upon what side of the fence rail you’re standing, and if that bloody “post turtle” is blocking your view…. LOL

If they can do it, it’s just fabulous by me. Always said the day the Iraq govt asks us to leave, let’s wish them luck, and go home.

But I did hear a couple of analysts talking on Jim Lehrer last night. One woman, for Iraq ambassador, suggested this was Maliki walking a fine line between nationalist pride and sovereignty pre-elections, and also a good negotiating tool for the SOFAs. The other guy took a more hard line, sans any political expediency, saying it was all about being disgruntled about SOFAs.

I suspect that “walking a fine line” between Iraq opinions and the need for US aid is more likely. I suspect that public “tut tut” are regularly done while silent assent plays in the background. We’ve watched Musharraf do the same for years in Pakistan.. not to mention how that may not play in your favor during election times. Maliki could well be running to sovereignty issues for votes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0