- ‹ previous
- 2721 of 2722
- next ›
2011
2011....The Washington Post has confirmed yesterday's WSJ report that the Bush administration has agreed to a 2011 pullout of U.S. combat troops from Iraq:
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.
...."We have a text," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after a day-long visit Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
....U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have [] agreed to a conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011, a date further in the future than the Iraqis initially wanted. The deal would leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles, such as military trainers, for an unspecified time. According to the U.S. military, there are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of whom are playing a combat role.
This sounds like exactly what I've been expecting: Maliki gets a pullout date; Bush gets a little more time than he'd get if Obama wins the election and sets his own withdrawal schedule; and several thousand combat troops will stay around for an unspecified period after the main pullout. (A bad idea, I think, but one that practically everyone in Washington seems to support.)
So will this be good news for the Obama campaign, as I argued last night? Megan McArdle is skeptical:
My first instinct was the opposite. McCain gets to claim that the Surge worked, the war issue is off the table, and McCain gets the credit for steely resolve without people fearing their sons will end up in Iraq. I'm puzzled by war opponents who think that voters will suddenly love Obama for having been "right all along". Assuming arguendo that this is true, the psychological logic is off. Most Americans supported the war. Do you become more endeared of your spouse when it turns out that you really should have taken that left fork thirty miles ago? Most people prefer folie à deux.
Actually, I think this is right to the extent that it means Obama has to be careful about dancing a victory jig and taking credit for his uncanny prescience. But then, he's not going to do that, is he? Rather, he'll be thoughtful and low key, as usual, allowing surrogates and the press to do the heavy lifting for him. It's true that you never know how these things will go, but Obama's judgment has been so spectacularly vindicated by this that it's hard not to see it helping him in the long run.
McMegan is being silly as always. Obama will do low key as always. And more attention will turn to the economy as Iraq becomes less of an issue now. Does anyone believe that under normal circumstances that Maliki would be getting his way? Bush doesn't want Obama to be able to declare victory.
McArdle's idea that "most Americans supported the war" in Iraq largely invalidates her argument: maybe for a time, years ago, but not now or in the past three years - not "most." Routing the Taliban in Afghanistan, going after Bin Laden seemed right - maybe now as much as in 2003, even given the Bush administration's cock-up of that endeavor. But Iraq? No. And if McCain claims the surge brought us to withdrawal, then he's dancing his own ostentatious victory jig, at a party he was refusing to attend only two months ago. And yeah, the traditional media will likely give him a pass if he does, but I'm not so sure "most Americans" will.
I saw this on the news last night and thought, 'this is BS...'. The Bush admin is getting its way with this; I really do not think they are serious.
If McCain is elected, he's going to take the pullout off the table, which will piss off Iraq but it's not like anything we've done thus far has been in their interest.
If Obama is elected, he is stuck with Bush's mess for a larger chunk of his first term, and it is going to make domestic issues harder to start solving.
Notice the big IF, too. IF there is 'progress' in Iraq, we leave.
Okay, so that means we have to continue exploiting our troops in the current fashion, continue screwing them on their benefits if they are sent home injured or worse, continue blowing money on overpriced incompetent contractors, and continue driving up the nat'l debt.
I need to stop before I get even more light-headed.
So these are the new digs, huh? Like you say, wait for the redesign before complaining, but hey, one nice thing is I see Yo La Tengo in the "Interviews" column on the left. Don't think that would have turned up at the old place.
Anyway, welcome to your new home, KD. Third one I've followed you to. Do those of us who still have you bookmarked as "Calpundit" get a t-shirt or something?
This is a strategic retreat on the part of the GOP. The good news (for them) is they are dumping a hugely unpopular war from the list of issues, which is a plus (as in, they are now bleeding profusely from three places as opposed to four). The bad news is this concentrates the campaign narrative on on other issues, such as the economy and McCain's age, where they are doing even worse than they were on the war.
I'll second the welcome and also note my fingers are drumming on the table waiting for a redesign. These pages are too much undifferentiated small black type on white, and the comment entry box is way too narrow. Kevin's commenter's tent to write longer, and you can't do that efficiently from this keyhole-sized edit field.
This will be an unacceptable post. The community rules here say,
"Stay On Topic
"- The topic of a blog entry is the topic for all comments pertaining to it. Beware of conversational drift.
"- No meta-discussion. Meta-discussion is conversation about the conversation: about another person's commenting style, about the blog rules, about the moderator's decisions, etc. Don't talk about the blog on the blog."
Conversational drift and meta discussion are among the reasons for following a blog comments thread. If these rules are really enforced, Kevin, you'll have lots fewer comments (and commenters).
So screw your rules about talking about the blog on the blog. Where the hell else am I going to talk about it. I don't see any of these people anywhere else.
the fun part about the announcement is that its a 'no-win' situation for Obama.
Obama has been all about his "sixteen month" timetable (of course, he fudges about it, but its alway 16 months.) This is a 36 month timetable -- over twice as long as what Obama has campaigned on.
If Obama makes the three year timetable an issue, he'll be vulnerable to challenge based on the assumption that this is the timetable that "the generals" endorse -- and Obama will be asked if he thinks he knows more than "the generals."
But if he doesn't make an issue of it -- if he acceeds to the idea of a significant American presence for more than TWICE as long as he said a withdrawal would take, he looks weak and vaccillating.
Once again, we see how Obama's lack of national security and military credibility can make him extremely vulnerable... and one can expect the McCain campaign to challenge Obama on whether he still plans to implement his 16 month timetable despite this agreement...
Yeah, I can't see how this breaks in favor of Obama. They did this to take the withdrawal issue off the table, because they thought it was a losing issue for the Republicans.
I think Obama has plenty of counterattack material should McCain try to paint him with the "inexperienced military" brush. Obama can still come right back with the "poor judgement on Iraq". But I don't think he can lead with that.
Not to get too meta about this, but shouldn't there be some sort of law that outgoing regimes a la BushCo can't lock us into deals extending more than a few months beyond their longevity?
Yes, because no one who supported the war way back when has deluded themselves into thinking that of course they were anti-war. Look, for example, at every single poll taken after an election. More people claim they voted for the winner then actually voted for the winner. People like to think they were right.
several thousand combat troops will stay around for an unspecified period after the main pullout. (A bad idea, I think, but one that practically everyone in Washington seems to support.)
When we pull out of Iraq, we are going to hand our military equipment over to the Iraqis. Much of it is junk anyway, and it's not worth shipping home or to Afghanistan, while it will be desperately needed by the Iraqis. But there is a problem. It takes a lot longer to train maintenance people than it does grunts, gunners and drivers. So we will have to leave maintenance people there to keep the equipment running.
I can assure you the maintenance people are not going to want the Iraqis protecting them. That means we need to leave a sizable number of combat troops. Then there will be advisers and trainers.
We destroyed the Iraqi government along with the police and military that are required to hold the nation together. Rebuilding those institutions is slow going, and the Iraqi military will need all the help it can get for quite a while.
That's what the timetable for withdrawal is all about. It is a phased withdrawal, with responsibilities being transfered sequentially over to the Iraqis as they rebuild the institutions America went out of its way to destroy. DeBaathification? And done by Chalabi?
I don't like leaving any troops there at all. But We are looking at a compromise that is based in the reality of the situation. The choice was made when the idiots decided to invade in the first place, then sent in Jerry Bremer and his AEI kiddie corps to restructure the Iraqi society as a Libertarian free market society. Talk about bad ideas!
It may be a bad idea, but it's based in reality (unlike the invasion and occupation itself) and the schedule is the the best solution available to clean up the really bad situation that Cheney and the NeoCons are still proud they gave to America and the world.
Next week the Obama and the Dems get the national stage pretty much all to themselves. I'll wait till then to make up my mind about whether this is going to be a good thing in the long run. But I have to admit, the timing couldn't have been better for Obama. Now lets see if he can run with it.
Kevin is a great and honest political commentator, but he virtually always has been spectacularly wrong on Iraq and he has very little military knowledge or experience. For example, he immediately declared the Iraqi military move in Basra a disaster based on virtually no information.
Here, his enthusiasm for Obama totally clouds his judgment. We are about to win in Iraq. Obama wanted to pull out in defeat by March 2008. Kevin now sees the 2011 pull out date as a vindication of Obama. That is the kind of crazy stuff that Kevin writes about Iraq. But he is excellent on domestic political issues.
anandine, I am with you.
A fair reaction, in other
A fair reaction, in other countries Monetary Policy and Bank Regulatory or financial sector regulatory are under different entities, e.g. Bank of England and Financial Services Authority. Regardless, your bizarre balkanised system is clearly a bad approach.
UGG Halendi Sandal discount
fashion Tiffany bangles
fashion Tiffany Bracelets
fashion Tiffany Cuff
fashion Tiffany Earrings
fashion Tiffany Necklaces
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette
UGG Lo Pro Button