Iraqi sovereignty, and other myths

Duh?

Clive @ 4:48 PM writes:

"The Iraqis want us to go home. Most of the American people want to go home. I'm pretty sure most of the soldiers want to go home.

So what's wrong with Bush?"

I'm going to try to be a little charitable here.....

He's trying to salvage what he suspects will be seen as a failed Presidency by making sure that the thing he will be held most responsible for goes the way HE wants it to go.

There's an old story that I am reminded of.....

"A man approaches a horse to ask his help. He asks the horse to put his superior weight and speed at the man's disposal to get rid of a wolf, which both are afraid of.

The horse agrees, and allows the man to put bridle, saddle, stirrups and bit on him. They go and find the wolf, which is duly slain.

The horse, greatly relieved at the demise of his enemy, speaks to the man. 'We have done a great thing; our mutual enemy is no more. I am grateful for your help. Now please, of your charity, remove your bit and bridle, and restore my freedom.'

The man, in reply, says: 'Like hell you say. Giddy-ap, Dobbin.' and applies the spurs with a will."

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Rod,

I imagine you are about my age (I am 41 years old). Back in the mid-1980s there were lots of protests in Western Europe demanding that US military bases and US military weapons systems be removed from Western European soil. These protests were the largest in West Germany.

But the Reagan administration and the leaders of the West German parliament were able to secretly negotiate a means of securing West Germany while trying to minimize the appearance, in the eyes of the West German electorate, that West Germany was simply a "puppet state" of the US.

The West German Left and the Soviet Union was always trying to separate West Germany from the United States because they knew that West Germany could be conquered if only Uncle Sam's military were out of the way.

A similar situation is at play currently in Iraq. Behind the scenes, the Iraq and US governments are trying to maintain security without making it look like the Iraqi government is simply to be ordered around by the US government.

In public, the Iraqi Prime Minister doesn't want to appear as though he's a US puppet. So, he plays both sides of the field. He demands a "timetable" for withdraw. But he also tried to negotiate a security agreement with the US, knowing the benefits of US help in this area.

These things (the "request" by Maliki that the US leave) are usually for public consumption, like poster Rock said. This is a non-story. The real story is that the US and Iran are negotiating a mutually-agreeable settlement regarding the future of Iraq.

If Japan asked us to go, we'd leave. But there's no danger of that. Why should they start paying for their own defense when the American taxpayer is so obliging?

I tend to agree that this whole timetable thing is a kabuki dance, but it could be something more significant. If Sadr really has been militarily reduced (and that's not clear), then as the strongest remaining Iraqi power, Maliki and the other SCIRI and Dawa characters (along with their Iranian backers) have no more use for American troops. In fact, American troops represent something of a threat to them, as they can still back up Sunni and Kurd minority forces. Time will tell. If in the next few weeks a SOFA agreement emerges along the lines being pushed by the Bush Administration, then it was all an act.

"A good example of the US leaving when it is told it must leave is the Phillipines many years ago."

Yes, it is. I assume you mean 1946, but 1898 is the far better historical analog.

Oh Please,
Rock, who are you trying to kid??? I would agree with you that this was pretty much exactly like use leaving the Philippines when asked....which we did....after about 12 years of an insurrection. The reason the Iraqi government is negotiating is that they have nothing else they can do. When the terrorists take you hostage, if they are willing to let you go in exchange for the Rolex, you take off the Rolex. It doesn't mean you were never kidnapped. There is no effective Iraqi Army that could stand up to the US army. What exactly should they do?

Well Rod it is good to have a IRaqi Update from you on Crunchy Con.

The last one of significance you had, unless I missed it, was "Iraq's "defining moment" date April 3rd .

THere you proclaimed that our Iraqi allies that were putting their live on the line "pathetic" and you ask " How lame is the Iraqi Army?" and " what an incompetent boob Maliki is".

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.

Needless to say your silence since your participation in the great Green zone freak out of 2008 aided by horrible reporting from the Times has been great

We are in talks right now and people from from the grand cleric Sistani that seemed to be calling Obama a typical politican and don't worry about what he says to the IRaq Foreign MInister that has been hesitant about a time table See Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari whom Obama basically accused of making stuff up as to a conversation they had on a time table

Compare Obama Remarks
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5176893&page=1

To the Iraqi Foreign Minister
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-and-iraqi.html

The question should not be so much what some State Department dude said as to the Security agreement. By the Way security agreements means we must defend Iraq if they are attacked. THus we have concerns about withdrawing too soon and thus creating a dangerous situation, to where we shall have to come to their aid.

BUt why as the Washington Post keeps asking why does Obama and Democrats not care that the IRaqis are reaching out to us for a long term security deal.

THe Iraqis and Americans are in tlaks for the a significant and important agreement and this all part of it. That is all.

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.