Iraq sets Time for U.S. Pullout

[classicman]

Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet’s decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.
The proposed pact must still be approved by Iraq’s Parliament, in a vote scheduled to take place in a week. But leaders of some of the largest parliamentary blocs expressed confidence that with the backing of most Shiites and Kurds they had enough support to ensure its approval.

Widespread Sunni opposition could doom the proposed pact even if it has the votes to pass, as it would call into question whether there was a true national consensus, which Shiite leaders consider essential.

The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables.

“This vote shows that the Iraqis have figured out how to stand up for themselves, to Iran and to the U.S.,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a specialist on Iraq at the Brookings Institution. “They will have stared in the face at the various options and concluded that none are ideal, but the best for their security is an amount of ongoing but finite American cooperation, while also indicating their strong desire to run their own country on their own as soon as possible.”

Good article - very informative. It also gives a much more realistic timetable for withdrawal than radar's rantings.

[tw]

The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities. The agreement is not in doubt. The major question (not discussed in that quote) are whether Americans can have (suggested up to 70) military bases in Iraq.

All but the Kurds want Americans out completely. They still have a civil war to finish. Remember that war that Americans foolishly believed was Al Qaeda? Well that civil war has not yet resulted in any diplomatic solution. Only the Kurds think they will be losers in a three way civil war.

Notice the quote in that article - O'Hanlon - who was driven from government because he told the truth about Iraq in 2002.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities.

Cite please. If you mean the Mahdi Army, then I believe you are mistaken. Moqtada al-Sadr has said repeatedly throughout the talks that he will not, specifically not, do so. That was apparently one of the lynch pins in getting the deal done.

As far back as August '08

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr would dissolve his Mahdi army militia if the United States started withdrawing troops according to a set timetable, a spokesman said. Sadr's decision to link disarming his militia to a US withdrawal comes at a crucial point in talks between Baghdad and Washington over a security pact to provide a legal basis for US troops in Iraq when a UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

I'm not sure that I believe him, but still, it was said.

[Bullitt]

Pull out like it's prom night!

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Cite please. If you mean the Mahdi Army, then I believe you are mistaken. Moqtada al-Sadr has said repeatedly throughout the talks that he will not, specifically not, do so.

All that was that changed during Friday prayers. However, Sadr is not the ultimate leader. Everyone has turned to hear what Sistani says. And Sistani has been silent.

It not about US withdrawing troops. Sadr said he will promote attacks on Americans if Americans are granted bases in Iraq.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw
The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities.

Originally Posted by tw

All that was that changed during Friday prayers. However, Sadr is not the ultimate leader. Sadr said he will promote attacks on Americans if Americans are granted bases in Iraq.

I still didn't see a cite for this claim - I've looked repeatedly and still cannot find anything to corroborate your claims.

[classicman]

Meanwhile... another good article about the troop withdrawal. Interesting tie in at the end regarding the hijackings too.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

We always said we would be there temporarily. I've always figured there would be arguments about the timing of our eventual departure -- someone will say things aren't done, another will say things are overdone, and the guy who says we shoudn'ta done will have to shut up, having nothing constructive to say.

The shouldn'ta-done sorts always impressed me as fascist sympathizers anyway. One reason I don't vote Democratic -- and obviously enough, one reason why Radar does. He believes we should leave tyrants alone; I believe this is the road to evil.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I still didn't see a cite for this claim - I've looked repeatedly ...

From the NY Times of 16 November 2008 entitled "Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout":

It remains unclear how hardened opponents of the agreement might respond, particularly followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. After the cabinet vote, Sadrist politicians, reiterating their opposition to the accord, claimed that as a procedural matter, parliamentary approval would require a two-thirds majority. Supporters say a simple majority will suffice.

In a statement released Sunday night, Mr. Sadr sought once again to position himself as a nationalist opponent of the American-led forces. “I call on the Iraqi Parliament again to refuse this pact without hesitation because it is a deal to sell Iraq and its people,” said Mr. Sadr, who in a statement at Friday Prayer last week also called for armed resistance against the Americans.

... Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, appears to be divided. A little more than a fourth of its members have said they will vote for the agreement, while leaders of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Tawafiq’s largest member party, said they would not approve any agreement without a national referendum, an unlikely development.

Also reported by other news services. Also listed are Sistani's three conditions for a settlement.

[classicman]

I already read that. However, that quote never mentions violence in any way - contrary to your previous statement.

Originally Posted by tw

The Madhr army says they will oppose with violence any agreement that results in US bases outside the cities.

Originally Posted by tw

After the cabinet vote, Sadrist politicians, reiterating their opposition to the accord, claimed that as a procedural matter, parliamentary approval would require a two-thirds majority.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I already read that. However, that quote never mentions violence in any way -

So "armed resistance" means they will be having a "love in". You hippies need to learn how to read.

[classicman]

my bad, missed it both times.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

my bad, missed it both times.

You hippies must learn. With all that pot, the short term memory is the first to go (from my early days working for the weather underground).

[classicman]

So true - I haven't done it in decades and it affects me still. What?

[TheMercenary]

It should be interesting. So many people voted for Obama on his promise to pull us out of Iraq. Now let's what he could do.

1) Order an immediate pullout the day after he takes office.

2) Order a more rapidly phased pullout in the next 6 months.

3) Follow the agreement between the Iraqi gov and the US gov recently approved. No pull out for a year or more.

Obama's quotes:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bara...ar_+_Peace.htm