AP: U.S., Iraq near agreement for withdrawal of combat troops by October 2010
posted at 1:40 pm on August 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
So we won’t be getting an Obama-esque 16-month timetable after all. We’ll be getting an … 18-month time horizon. Nuance.
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…
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.
Residual forces will supposedly be out by 2013, the same year McCain targeted for final withdrawal in his Iraq speech a few months ago (doubtless because it would mark the very end of his first term). A lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Army told the NYT earlier this week that they’d need U.S. troop support until 2015; another officer who didn’t hazard an estimate simply said that without American combat troops Iraq will be “a big disaster.” Bush will, of course, emphasize that the time frame here is conditions-based (presumably with Obama’s approval), but expectations have a momentum all their own. Barring a severe deterioration in security, public pressure on the Iraqi government to enforce the timetable now that they’ve committed to it will be intense, if for no other reason than that Sadr is already making a stink about it and will demagogue it to gain leverage over them if they fail to follow through. Likely result: The IA will be pressed into a lead role before they’re ready and some of those “residual” U.S. troops will find themselves drafted back into a combat/peacekeeper role. That’s probably the most politically palatable solution for all sides, since it would maintain the all-important reduction in absolute numbers while allowing for a more vigorous presence below the radar than the timetable imagines.
I’m mighty curious to see what this does to McCain’s lead on this issue. Exit question recommendation: Read the Times’s piece this morning on the 500th combat death in Afghanistan, formally signaling the transition of the media’s “grim milestone” meme from Iraq to a theater where anti-war sentiment might still accomplish something.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Victory-based rather than defeat-based.
RBMN on August 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I hope it works.
rockhauler on August 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM
It doesn’t matter what Obama proposes. He’s trying to hitch his little wagon to the star of the surge and victory in Iraq while opposing both. Screw him. He gets no credit for ending the war even if he is our next president (God forbid).
Amy Proctor on August 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I can just imagine what AQ’s digital voice recorder has on it..
“Note to self, surge in Iraq in November of 2010. Also, pick up some hummus on the way home tonight.”
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM
If we leave and the place blows up, are we committed to going back in again, or do we let it turn into Gaza on the Euphrates, Somalia in Mesopotamia, or a return to iron-fisted tyranny a la Saddam under a different name?
Oh, what am I saying, what can go wrong, we have peace in the middle east.
rockhauler on August 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM
They just need to do what is necessary to make good on the sacrifices of so much blood and treasure. Slain Iraqis and our troops must be vidicated, both in equal measure. It seems like this is the path we are on, which is damn pleasing at the moment.
Dr. Manhattan on August 7, 2008 at 1:50 PM
McCain was on Glen Beck’s show this morning. Beck asked him what the world will be like in another 10 years if the U.S. does not increase its own production of energy from all sources. One of his responses was, “imagine where we would be today if Saddam Hussein were still in power and oil was $125 a barrel. Imagine where all those dollars would be going.” That’s the next battleground in the campaign and McCain has staked out the high ground. Very smart.
rockmom on August 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM
If current trends continue 2013-15 is probably not an unrealistic timeframe for the the US to finish getting the IA up to speed with logistics, etc.
And if the US is able to at least reduce its profile by 2010, Sadr won’t have enough political clout to force the process. It’s easy for Iraqis to complain when they know we are not bugging out immediately. But when push comes to shove, note that the Iraqis have put off the formal handover of authority in Anbar because they are afraid the US would reduce its involvement there.
Karl on August 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM
That’s a touch irritating. If MSM would cover the war, they would be more coverage. Unfortunately Iraq fit the meta-theme more accurately. The problem is now, for the press I mean, that Iraq is a success story. And I don’t see how this can get traction. Didn’t noted foreign policy experts Ron Paul and Barack Obama vote for Operation Enduring Freedom?
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Impressive difference, indeed.
freevillage on August 7, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I have talked about this before.
If they hit the timelines on the minimums this would be the 4 security Bdes for the four Air Bases that will need to stay to cover the air defense until Iraq takes that over in 2018-20.
- Sep08 decision for reduction to 12 BCTs by Jan.
- Mar09 decision for 10 BCTs by July.
- Sep09 decision for 7 BCTs by Jan.
- Mar10 decision for 4 BCTs by July (mid-2010).
The 4 BCTS are the residual security for the air defense of Iraq and do not leave until the air leaves.
This is the minimum timeline plan and was briefed last fall…
DJ Elliott on August 7, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I hope this works, but I don’t believe a word that the AP puts out.
d1carter on August 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM
This tentative agreement maybe the result of Maliki’s election. There are segements of Iraq that want to know things are going well and they are independent enough to exist without US support. If he is not elected then we could have another Hamas-like election. That would not be good for anybody. Definitely a two edged sword.
volsense on August 7, 2008 at 2:07 PM
The Iraqis should be negotiating with us over how long they want us to stay, not us negotiating with them over when we can leave.
Make them take full responsibility.
LimeyGeek on August 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM
If we start pulling out brigades next month (which is quite possible), wouldn’t that be a 25 month timetable?
BohicaTwentyTwo on August 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM
16-month timetable = Cut-and-run defeatist stupidity.
18-month time horizon = We-win patriotic brilliance.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM
I think that the Left wanted Afghanistan and Iraq to follow a Korea-to-Vietnam narrative. To them, communism and terrorism were both overexaggerated threats, put in place to advance (insert conspiracy theory here.)
Now that we have seen the fantastic progress in Iraq, the Left is burned that their “failure narrative” did not flesh out. Any increase in violence in Afghanistan is their last hope for “I told you so.”
MB007 on August 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM
It’s kind of a matter when the 16 months would have started.
I’m absolutely with you on that, but there are no politicians able to really benefit from that position are there? So it seems to just be liberal mantra repeated for it’s own sake.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM
The difference is that Obama’s 16 month plan is a campaign promise.
This is an agreement between the US and Iraqi governments that will replace the UN resolution that terminates in Dec. 08.
The first one is a political maneuver the second is a national security strategy.
It’s really not that hard to understand the difference unless, of course, you choose to see it cloaked in politics.
Texas Gal on August 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I think that only two kinds of politicians could benefit from that. One kind are egotists who believe in a hard-left ideology and cannot stand to see themselves proved wrong. (ie, Dick Durbin) The other kind are those who represent abnormally liberal districts or constituencies. (ie, Cynthia McKinney)
And, in most cases, and with both examples above, these two characteristics tend to overlap.
MB007 on August 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
“16-month timetable = Cut-and-run defeatist stupidity”
It was, because when it was originally argued, it was regardless of the conditions.
Even if it resulted in complete collapse into anarchy and withdrawal under fire, Democrats advocated it.
Now that the situation is stabilized, an 18 month timetable makes sense.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I’m stuck. There are 12 months in 2009 and 9 months before October in 2010. Isn’t that 21 months, not 18 months?
What was left unsaid?
Dusty on August 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM
WHAT?!?! But, but, Harry Reid said:
“We’ve been so focused on Iraq, and we all know Afghanistan has not received the attention and resources it needs,” Reid told reporters. “We are where we are, but not where we should be. After 9/11, we spent a little time here and left…
I’m so confused.
Buy Danish on August 7, 2008 at 2:39 PM
But Obama’s conditions based now. Remember? Timetable’s gone last I checked.
And when he first proposed it, it was cut and run defeatist stupidity. The conditions have changed around him so his plan actually now makes some sense.
Chuck Schick on August 7, 2008 at 2:46 PM
The most important long view condition remains the same. Iraq was Islamic, Iraq is Islamic and Iraq will remain Islamic.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War)
Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.
- Sir Winston Churchill (speaking of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” in his book the “The Gathering Storm”)
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I wondered why Obama chose “16″ beyond his choice of wording like “sweetie”.
18months, a year and a half, a more “ball park” figure suiting Bush.
Of course after all these years, this was to be expected, organized withdrawal of forces as “benchmarks” are achieved.
Like many Americans, I want to know exactly what Iraq is going to provide for America in turn for our providing their independence and security to date.
maverick muse on August 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
“The most important long view condition remains the same. Iraq was Islamic, Iraq is Islamic and Iraq will remain Islamic.”
You know this how?
Seems to me, Al Qaeda and other religious extremists have been discredited and killed by the bushel.
With any luck, Iraqis will soon be as dismissive of their religion as europeans are.
Used to be, churches in Europe were standing room only. Now they’re museums. And that’s because the church abused its power.
So has the mosque.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM
“Cut and run defeatist stupidity”, “Global Warming deniers and flat earthers” – same show just under a different tent.
Dolchstoßlegende redux.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 2:56 PM
You must be kidding.
It would take less luck for me to be able to fly.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Hypothetically speaking, if freedom and the Quran are anti-thetical, then why not introduce freedom in the heart of where the power of Islam is (I mean the Middle East, not Iraq nec). Even if you don’t get perfect freedom, aren’t you blunting the power of the threat against freedom?
Churchill wasn’t afraid of British power being present in the Middle East.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Point is, democrat have been crying ‘pull out’ for years.
There had to come a time when we would actually ‘pull out’.
However, it doesn’t make them right when they said it years ago.
cntrlfrk on August 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammad himself did. Also, the Koran condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Koran. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest.
A_Plague_on_Both_Houses (JihadWatch)
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM
“It would take less luck for me to be able to fly.”
Prior to the French Revolution, people would have said the same thing about France.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM
That kind of ignores the fact that cigarette smoking Iraqis got tired of AQ. Or AQI if you prefer.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 3:15 PM
George W. Bush: Hello Mr. Maliki.
Maliki: Hello Mr. Bush.
George W. Bush: Don’t you think that you should “clarify” those remarks that you have been making lately?
Maliki: No. I don’t see why I should do that. I thought I was pretty clear. I mean you said that I got to be the sovereign leader of Iraq and that you wanted us to stand up so that you could stand down.
George W. Bush: Does the name Ngo Dinh Diem mean anything to you?
Maliki: I’ll get right on that “clarifying” right now!!! “Time horizons” was that what you wanted me to say? I don’t even know what the hell that means, but, I like it, I like it!!!
George W. Bush: I thought that you would see it my way.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
What are you an editor for Soldier of Fortune or something? Nice mercenary attitude. Fortunately we in the Armed Forces don’t share it…
On all the gas baggery re: horizons timelines or whatnot. Of course, if you read it in the AP, that means TRVTH! I guess us dummies here in MNSTC-I must have lesser sources of information than the wire service.
major john on August 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The Turks are Muslim. They have a democracy. Why can’t that happen now?
mjk on August 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM
mjk on August 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM –
If Iraq becomes a vibrant democracy, Turkey will remain a vibrant democracy. If Iraq tumbles under trhe wheels of the bus, Turkey will follow within a very short time.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund.
Johan Klaus on August 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Good Lord…Obama is lauded for suggesting that the winning team, late in the 4th quarter, should run the ball instead of throwing it downfield.
In actuality, he wanted to throw in the towel at half-time.
I’m guessing he had an inkling yesterday that Brett Favre wasn’t going to start for the Packers this season.
Brilliant!
Asher on August 7, 2008 at 4:32 PM
They have to make a deal before it is too late. If Obama wins they are screwed. It is kind of sad that they have to rush this thing.
tomas on August 7, 2008 at 4:46 PM
McCain can simply make the point that if we’d left under Obama’s original plan, we’d be leaving behind a civil war rather than a country that is fairly peaceful and the closest thing in Arabia to a liberal democracy.
TallDave on August 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Coitus interruptus?
omnipotent on August 7, 2008 at 5:56 PM
How something, especially something so costly, serves America is suppose to be a question that an American President is suppose to be asking all the time.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 7:23 PM
No hablo Aleman muy bien.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Bis Ihnen das Geld.
MB4 on August 7, 2008 at 7:40 PM
I think this will make it easier for McCain, not harder. In fact I am sure Bush would rather be the one to make this call if possible so that the next president is not totally responsible for the outcome.
Terrye on August 7, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Meanwhile, Britain is seeking long-term presence in Iraq
BDU-33 on August 7, 2008 at 8:28 PM
BDU-33 on August 7, 2008 at 8:28 PM –
One of Eisenhower’s biggest source of headaches, and they were, according to those around him who wrote of Eisnehower, pretty terrible, were his efforts to keep the Allies on the same sheet of music. Monty kept wandering off on his own special tangeant quite a lot…
I read that piece about the Brits wanting to stay in Basra for the foreseeable future. Good for them. Now, if they decide to stay, and we decide to bug out…what then?
Seems CENTCOM, and the Multi-National Force HQ in Baghdad better make sure all players are reading from the same sheet of music, and then get Washington and London to do the same.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Victory! None of our brave troops died in vain.
God Bless our Troops and God Bless America.
Travis1 on August 7, 2008 at 11:27 PM
MB4, haggling over 16 or 18 months is irrelevant. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans able to talk about troop withdrawal shows how wrong the Obama initiates to get us out of Iraq years ago were.
What he wants to do now is become President and claim he ended the war. With his beligerance toward ending the war regardless of conditions on the ground shows he is not willing to end the war, but withdrawal U.S. support from it. Pulling troops doesn’t equal ending the war. The war will go on with or without us but we are still in a situation in which some or possibly much of the gains our soldiers, including many of my husband’s buddies, have died for can be undone.
Quibbling over 16 or 18 months isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we listen to commanders on the ground or not. The issue is whether our withdrawal is conditions based or politically based.
I think we know which of the two Obama’s plan is based on.
Amy Proctor on August 8, 2008 at 2:10 AM
That should be “how wrong the Obama initiatives” in the second sentence.
Amy Proctor on August 8, 2008 at 2:11 AM
We are a representative democracy, not a military oligarchy and military officers take their oath to the U.S. Constitution.
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 2:28 AM
PS… the good news is that if a deal is reached soon, no matter who the President is, Bush can take credit for starting and ending the war within his administration. There’s nothing Obama can do about that and he’ll have nothing to do with the withdrawal!
Amy Proctor on August 8, 2008 at 2:29 AM
not to the Koran, although some seem to have developed a certain fondness for kissing it.
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 2:30 AM
Officers take an oath to defend adn protect the United States against enemies foreign and domenstic and to OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Commanders inform the President, he makes the decisions.
A representative government doesn’t mean the military takes its orders from “the people”.
Amy Proctor on August 8, 2008 at 2:59 AM
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 3:23 AM
MB4, you are right. I was thinking of the oath of enlistment:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Now, “supporting and denfending the Constitution” doesn’t change the fact that commanders brief the Commander in Chief and that the Commander in Chief makes the final decision.
What does supporting and defending the Constitution look like to you? I’m not sure what you’re point is. GEN Petraeus would know more about conditions on the ground, which is a large part of his function, than the President (or the Constitution would).
Amy Proctor on August 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Officers in the US military are part of the Executive Branch. They answer to the President/SecDef directly through the JCS and subordinate command structure. They are not part of the Legislative Branch. Reid and Pelosi do not command the armed forces.
It has been a habit of Congress to get involved and insinuate themselves into military affairs with growing poor results since the late 1960’s.
This involvement goes beyond being the Constitutional custodians of the federal purse strings…it now goes to strategy and tactics.
As Granma always said, “too many cooks…”
coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Comment pages: