seems like almost done deal BAGHDAD — Two Iraqi officials say the U.S. and Iraq are close to a deal under which all American combat troops would leave by October 2010 with remaining U.S. forces gone about three years later. A U.S. official in Washington acknowledges progress has been made on the timelines for a U.S. departure but offered no firm date. Another U.S. official strongly suggested the 2010 date may be too ambitious. A timetable is part of a security agreement being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials. Both sides stress the deal is not final and could fall apart over the issue of legal immunity for American troops. One of the U.S. officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" telephone conversation Wednesday in which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility, particularly on immunity.
US troops would have legal immunity from Iraqi laws. Its a pretty common practice as US troops stationed overseas have similar arrangements in other countries such as Japan, South Korea, Italy and so on.
Actually the Obama plan would've meant pulling the troops out before the surge ever happened. Iraq would look very different today.
You are wrong about when Obama wanted to pull the troops out unless you are referring to not going in in the first place. But if you want to talk about nations that would look different under the Obama plan let's talk about Afghanistan.
<embed FlashVars='videoId=178638' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed> It an aspirational time horizon, not a time line.
He opposed the surge in Iraq. That's what turned everything around and laid the groundwork for the troops to be out by 2010. As for Afghanistan, he supports a surge there. Ironic considering he opposed the one in Iraq.
Obama opposed the surge in Iraq that doesn't mean that he was in favor of withdrawing all the troops before the situation turned around, and if you follow any of what Obama has said, he's never been in favor of that. Obama has always favored sening more troops into Afghanistan, and it isn't really ironic considering that's where the terrorists who attacked us were based. The U.S. and it's allies have lost ground in Afghanistan, suffered set back after set back, have had to abandon posts, and seen a rise in the strength of the Taliban there. Obama had the good judgement to argue that we should have been focusing our attention there instead of Iraq.
As I see it, we can compare the candidates using either of two criteria with regards to Iraq policy. (1) Who had the better judgement on the most important issues we faced in the past, or (2) Who appears to have the better plan looking forward? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and the surge (as opposed to an earlier withdrawal) was a good idea. These assumptions are, of course, subject to debate. Using criterion 1, Obama was right about the invasion but wrong about the surge. McCain was wrong about the invasion but right about the surge. Now, the question becomes: which was a more important decision, the decision to initiate the war or the debate over the surge? Criterion 2 is simpler, as the plan Obama has long been advocating has since been adopted by Maliki, McCain, and apparently the Bush administration.
It is hard to know what to make of this. I doubt that it is just that all of a sudden the puppet Maliki government is dictating to Bush. Ninety days roughly to the US elections. The Iranians want Maliki to push for a US withdrawal so they can consolidate their control over the government our troops died to install. Sadr, remember him?, wants us to leave. The Sunni insurgency-- who knows? A lot of them are on our payroll and they do have reason to fear the majority Shia. Bush wants to help McCain and make it all look like a big success, due to the surge, as Bush rides into the sunset. Maybe Bush can try a "mission accomplished" rerun. If McCain wins he can still continue for a hundred years. If Obama wins and is to inherit a mess, Bush and the GOP are pleased and can pretend that he is the one who lost the war. I also suspect that there are probably some long term oil deals that will be signed in conjunction with this agreement. Possible good news for the troops, but I wouldn't just yet enlist unless you want to probably be a target to help Iran win in Iraq. ]
If it can be played as a big victory perhaps. As Iraqi nationalism takes over they might start thwarting the goals of US foreign policy, especially the neo-con agenda. Haven't seen any recent polls. Though it took a long time for a majority to decide the war was a mistake, they seem to be holding their opinion, despite the claims that the surge has made the whole war worthwhile.
