Iraqi sovereignty, and other myths

Of course the Basra offensive went a lot better by the talking heds than expected an lo and behold Iraqi troops now are kicking out Iranian influence in Eastern Iraq.

The ruling parties, SCIRI and Dawa, have long been Iranian cat's paws. The Sadrists were the more anti-Iranian Shia party. You've got it backwards.

hattio,

Any evidence that the governments of "Japan, South Korea, Germany and a host of other nations" ever asked us to leave???

No. But during the 1980s, when the US was deploying nuclear missles in Western Europe, there were huge protests in Europe demanding that the US get their missles out of their territory. The elected leaders of many of these countries would, for political reasons, not want to appear like puppets of President Ronald Reagan. But the missles and American soldiers stayed in Europe and many remain there today.

There's no evidence that the Prime Minister of Iraq is asking us to leave. He's just saying, to the public at least, "In order for us (the Iraq government) to agree to a security agreement, we must get some 'hard dates' and a withdraw 'timetable.'"

If the Prime Minister of Iraq really wanted us to leave, I doubt he'd be willing to continue negotiations with the US on a security arrangement.

Politicians often try to get credit for being "independent" while privately being much more cooperative with the US. A good politician does this. Did you ever consider that the Prime Minister of Iraq might just be a good politicans and wants his cake (US military assistance in hunting down the terrorists and sectarians in Iraq) and be able to eat it too (be able to say to the Iraqi electorate that he's not an American puppet)?

As I mentioned, if he really wanted us out, I think the negotiations over a long term security arrangement would have ended.

This is international politics at its finest, where what is meant can only be gleaned by reading between the lines of what is seen, and where smart people often come up with elegant solutions in the end - though often only after a rather nasty military action or three by one party or several. It eventually shakes down to a mutually agreeable status quo. I always read the political commentary on all sides with a grain of salt, and am usually rewarded by finding great humor in it all. Despite the bloodshed. (But war will give you a healthy sense of irony if nothing else.)

Here's my take on the politics, starting with at home. The American people would like out of this disagreeable conflict. Their hearts are not in it, and they are starting to realize they have a few fires (literal and figurative) to put out at home. They'd rather there weren't American soldiers dying in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.) The military, on the other hand, will keep going on as ordered until all resources and personnel are exhausted. That is its purpose. But even the generals are getting a little nervous about Afghanistan, where many things have been tried, except adequate personnel to hold territory which is taken. It is to the point where Afghans are liberated by Coalition Forces by day, and re-liberated by the Taliban by night, and they can be forgiven for not fully cooperating with us, given the Taliban's fondness of beheading and bombing. Long and short of it, in order to deal with Afghanistan, and to the general relief of the American populace, rather a lot of brigades had better be pulled out of Iraq sooner rather than later.

On the Iraq side, we have a situation nearly as fractal as Lebanon, complete with shadowy Iranian-backed militias vying for power against each other. The Sunnis and Kurds are reaching various deals - time will tell if those withstand the light of day. Government troops have done a fairly good job of late - even in Mosul, though, again, deals with shadowy people and politicians may have more to do with it than straight force, and even if they still need American re-supply and financing. The only thing all parties currently agree on is that they've voted Sadr off the island. He is on the losing end both around the political table and on the streets, though he still has a loyal following which could easily be roused to a (suicidal) last stand which would cause a fair amount of damage.

The people universally want the occupiers gone - that doesn't necessarily mean every American boot leaves Iraq soil, but it certainly means rather a lot less blatantly American-flagged convoys hurtling up and down the streets. Many countries we have SOFA agreements with limit how many and what kind of military movements can be conducted outside military camp walls. This deal, whether long or short term, will see these limits imposed on U.S. forces, though you can be sure there will still be our own shadowy groups out playing in the streets. That's a long-standing tradition, after all.

In conclusion, Iraq's government calling for a timetable, coupled with our general opinion at home, and the realities of a stretched force with more troops needed in Afghanistan, are all really pointing to a drawdown in Iraq. The only thing left to be decided is how quickly are troops withdrawn, to what levels, and what name shall we coin for this, since the term "timetable" annoys half of negotiating parties. Rightness or wrongness is giving way to pragmatism for most parties (including our here-to-fore sworn enemies who are now largely on our payroll, ironically enough.)

That post was rather too long. Hope I haven't lost all of you, but love international relations. It's far past my bedtime. Good night.