I agree with ikestoys

WORLD ASPLODE


If the Iraqi government said "get out" and the US said "no", it'd be AWFUL. But asking the US to give a timed withdrawal is very different. If, however, Maliki said "get out by Jan, 2009" then that is when we'd have no real option but to leave.

ty guys

The argument strongest argument against a timetable IMO is that it may be too aggressive and the Iraqi security forces may not be ready when troop reductions are scheduled. Unless I'm missing something that argument is moot. Iraqis say they're ready, they're ready. US should run not walk to put this in place. I must be missing something but not sure what or is this just another BS position from the Bush administration. What conditions have to be in place? The mission is changing yet again?

That's easy for the Bush administration to handle. Just say 2020 and see what the Iraqi government says. To me this sounds like Iraqis wouldn't be all that unhappy with an ASAP answer from the US. I mean it does seem like a perfectly legitimate response from the Bush administration would be when would you like us to leave?

This really isn't new; the Bush Administration has had a revolving door of justifications for staying in Iraq forever. Over the past 6 years, when things were "going bad", US troops needed to say to provide stability and make things better and get all the violence to stop. And when things were "going well" and casualty levels were down and violence had ceased or dissipated, the Bush Administration argument was that the US was making so much progress and less people were dying, therefore we're justified in staying forever. In other words, heads we stay, tails we stay.

It's not different now with respect the opinion of Iraqis and the Iraqi government. The Bush Administration argued we'd stay in Iraq so long as the Iraqis wanted us there -- except of course when the people and the government say they don't want us there. In which case, their opinion is irrelevant and the conditions on the ground will determine when we leave. So we'll only stay in Iraq so long as the Maliki government want us there...unless they don't, in which case we'll stay anyway. In other words, heads we stay, tails we stay.

Why anyone bothers paying attention to the Bush Administration benchmarks related to progress or the will of Iraqis -- as if they're meaningful metrics of when US forces ought to leave Iraq -- just foolishness. Regardless of whether the benchmarks are met -- regardless of how much progress we're making, or not making, or how much the Iraqis want us to stay, or not -- the end result is the Bush Administration saying we can't leave. This shouldn't be surprising anymore.

This is just more evidence that Bush, Cheney, and the Neo-Con chicken hawks have no intention of leaving Iraq until American oil companies are firmly in place and the American Flag flies in the backrooms of Iraqi influence and power.

Unless money is continually funneled to al-Sadr and other Iraqi power brokers, this will never happen.

And just as I predicted:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1215...googlenews_wsj
What do I win?

A ****ing cookie. Unfortunately it is going to given to you by the government so it will have to be approved, voted on, sent, lost, found by some bureaucracy, resent and you will probably receive it in 2012

How can we get out if we are there for the oil? But if we are there for the oil why aren't we taking it already?

How dare those iraqis tell the american armed forces what to do.

we took the country over, now we get to do whatever the hell we please!

they are lucky their women aren't attractive, so all we do is pillage.

fail.

Has God told Bush to leave? I think Bush said he pretty much does what God tells him to do so a better question is:

"Why does God still want the Iraq War to continue?"

Like duh, obviously some Muslims are still alive.

Just a few months ago, American officals were talking about how it was critical that a new status of forces agreement be in place by July 31st. Well, it's toast.

This may be true actually.

6 months to go of negotiations, and the agreement is dead?

interesting.

It's not like something like that can be hobbled together at 11:59 with the clock ticking. The the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.


And I'm not the one who said July 31st was an important date.

"U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration."

So, at best, there won't be a real status of forces agreement in place, but maybe some wonky patchwork bandaid instead.

And the next paragraph Erik:
Seems reasonable. I don't think its really fair to bind Obama's or McCain's hands for x years into their presidency.

Ah, failure = success. Cool.

In bizarro Erik world, this is a failure. In reality, this seems to be an OK result. Peace.

The US gov't has its hands tied. They can't just leave because then the Iraqi sham gov't will be exposed as a sham when some rebel groups take over. Oil prices will skyrocket even beyond their current high levels. High oil prices make Americans angry at the government.

For this reason, I predict Obama will stay in Iraq too. No one is going to leave for a long time.

I agree with you Ike, that denying a specific date is a far cry from saying 'we will not leave.'

What rebel groups are you talking about?

The state centric model of energy security is irrelevant today. Small groups can already achieve system disruptions of oil networks in the face of the behemoth that is the American military. If you're talking stability wise, things aren't just going to collapse with chaos ensuing if we left, such a statement would be pretty lol worthy.

I agree with this as well. Still it's hard to be "liberators" when a group says "get out" and we say "no." This is partially why you don't get involved with wars unless you absolutely have to (and we didn't here). That and you know...death.