As of late I have found myself engrossed in local news, news regarding Montana, and coverage of the presidential campaign. Sometimes, I forget that there are other things going on in the world.
Iraq’s prime minister has for the first time publicly called for a US troop withdrawal timetable.
Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday that a military agreement the two countries are negotiating should include provisions for the withdrawal of American troops.
The BBC accurately states,
The American position has always been that setting a timetable for withdrawal gives an advantage to insurgents who have been battling US-led forces since the 2003 invasion which overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Despite this position, a call for a timetable from the PM of Iraq would seem to call for an immediate review of the current situation. Unfortunetly, The White House and The Pentagon are ignoring this momentous event, sort of.
The Pentagon has played down the suggestion of a withdrawal timetable.
But correspondents say Iraqi MPs would be more likely to back Mr Maliki if the deal includes such a timetable.
The Bush administration’s response was muted, saying it was not negotiating for a “hard date” to withdraw its troops.
“Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day,” Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said on Tuesday in Japan, where George Bush, the US president, was attending the Group of Eight summit.
“It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal.”
Because the UN mandate regarding Iraq, which essentially permits US occupation of Iraq, expires at the end of the year, an agreement must be reached by both parties (US and Iraqi) in order to legally keep US troops in Iraq. This puts power into Nuri al-Maliki’s hands and should force US diplomats, etc. to listen.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be gaining the audience he deserves. How absolutely catastrophic would it be for the US to ignore the requests of a sovereign government - especially in this situation? And from a pragmatic and strategic point of view, wouldn’t failure to adhere to the PM’s requests weaken his legitimacy and thus weaken the Iraqi state?
The answer to the first question is: “it probably wouldn’t be good.” The answer to the seacond question is: “most likely.”
Last 5 posts by Bob Funk
- Montana: "toss up" state, again - October 20th, 2008
- Quote of the Day - October 1st, 2008
- Thoughts from Alaska - September 25th, 2008
- Food for Thought - September 24th, 2008
- DHS now officially seizing and searching laptops - August 3rd, 2008
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Pogie 07.08.08 at 5:34 am
Wait. Doesn’t this mean that he wants to surrender in the war against terror?
Liz 07.08.08 at 12:29 pm
i am friends with a lot of Muslims from this part of the world - Turkey, Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia. You know what they say? They say that the reason insurgents are still there is because the US is still there. We are occupying their land, and so they are doing ‘jihad’ against us, because we shouldn’t be there in the first place. Many, if not all, of my friends say that as soon as the US leaves the insurgents will stop their attacking. A lot of Americans don’t believe this though. Right now the prime targets of insurgents are Americans and Christians. Arab Christians are targeted because Christianity is seen as primarily a Western religion. However, the violence would slow down once the US occupation left. And the whole Shia/Sunni thing? That’s not even as big a deal as the media is making it.
i am all for leaving iraq. i really do think that violence will subside only when we leave. The Middle East, or now “Southwest Asia,” has always been under control of others: the Romans, the Turks, the British, the French, and now the US. This isn’t our place. They can take care of themselves. And if they want help from the outside, they’ll ask for it.
Bob Funk 07.08.08 at 12:54 pm
The issue of violence is important, but what I find to be the most important element of this development is that the legitimate government of Iraq wants US troops out and we should respect these requests.
This is a request that is being made not by totalitarian ideologue - this is a request being made by the leader of Iraq.
If we fail to acknowledge this request (and, yes, concede to it) we will only embolden those who would bring more instability to the region, while, at the same time, severely weakening the PM’s legitimacy in the country, region, and world.
The difference is that this is coming from Nuri al-Maliki, not a Sadr-like character.
Bob Funk 07.08.08 at 12:56 pm
I really wish I hadn’t used the word “embolden” - sounds like a Bushism, but the point remains. If the PM can’t convince the US gov’t to remove troops, I would assume the people of Iraq will look elsewhere.
Liz 07.08.08 at 3:19 pm
a lot of the world thinks that al-maliki is a pawn. but i agree with you - he is asking the US to withdraw, and thus, is actually trying to do something for his country. we were the ones who forced an election in the area. we should at least adhere to our own rules…