My photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008


The United States Government just announced it's refusal to set a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq, even when asked to do so by Iraq's much touted democratically elected government. Barak Obama asserts that he won't leave Iraq if anything nasty might ensue. McCain won't leave until "Victory" is achieved, however that may be defined. I have no formal training in diplomacy, but it seems to me that having invaded the wrong country, reduced it to a purgatory and imposed an alien form of government upon its people, we might at least have the good grace to leave when asked. Mr. Maliki is the elected head of Government. It is his country. I suppose we just aren't finished liberating them yet.

Our government admits to imposing unnamed conditions for our withdrawal. Clearly we want basing rights as a launching pad for our own jihad against Iran. But the regime we set up in Baghdad is very cozy with Iran. So it looks like the whole war has come to this, we are being given the bums rush by our own puppets.

Too bad about all those lives lost though.


  1. Sorry, but your assertion that the Maliki government had asked for a specific timetable for withdraw is bogus.

    What the Prime Minister actually said was that there will come a time when all of the leading cities throughout Iraq will have been secured by the Iraqi military. He said that once that had happened -- and he clearly cited no definite time period for that to happen -- but that once it had, he stated that there should be a review once every 6 months, over about a five year period, to determine when the Americans should withdraw troops.

    That is simply not a definite timetable.

    Perhaps you are relying a bit too much on a vague description contained in a news article published by a news-gathering organization that is pressing an agenda running contrary to that of the current Administration in Washington.

    I know, I know . . . it comes as a shock. But there are such devious folks! I could name a few, if you are interested.

  2. Maliki's own defense minister seems to have other ideas. On Tuesday, Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie made sure the Iraqi government's call for a timetable was clear. He said, "We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure."

    So we are clearly negotiating the terms of our withdrawal. These negotiations are delicate, so delicate in fact that we refuse to discuss what they entail. But according to U S State Department Spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos, " We want to withdraw, we will withdraw; However that decision will be conditions based." Clearly we are negotiating out terms of withdrawal with our "ally."

    If the State Department admits we are holding up a withdrawal until our "conditions," are met, it does rather makes a nonsense of any clarifications.

    Unless the Iraqi defense minister was misspeaking, his government has asked for a date or dates of withdrawal. Our State Department sayes this is not entirely up to them.

    Finally, the last fig leaf in our bouquet of fig leaves for invading Iraq is about to fall. The UN resolution authorizing us to occupy Iraq expires at the end of the year. It would be good to get out soon, while the getting is good. If we need a base in the Persian Gulf we can always get one among the Emirates.

  3. Suddenly a few "ifs" have appeared in your reasoning process, where moral certainty seemed to dominate the original post. Everyone is talking about departure of combat troops -- it is a matter of how. All would agree that that is the goal.

    The description I gave above is an accurate depiction of what was proposed by Maliki. Yes, there will be discussions and negotiations, with many things being said for local consumption, and otherwise. Yes, some have talked of time tables. There are, after all, provincial elections coming up in the fall.

    But suggesting that the Maliki statements underscore Obama's is a little silly. Had we listened to Obama's original idea, the last of our troops would have left in March. There would have been no surge, and al-Qaeda would likely be in charge of huge portions of the country. And we would be viewed world wide as having been humiliated and defeated militarily by a band of vicious killers, who would be using that as a recruitment tool. There would likely be no Maliki.

    Therefore, your suggestion that one comment -- undoubtedly aimed at local consumption -- thereby undermines the entire negotiation, is a flawed argument.

    There have been a significant number of positive accomplishments that have arisen out of the Iraqi adventure, including a substantial defeat of al-Qaeda. How history will see it all in terms of the overall effect on our national interest, remains to be seen.

  4. OK there is a lot to unpack here so I'll try to touch on the basic points.

    If Obama was taking heat for calling for a date certain for withdrawal, and then the defense minister of Iraq, who is conducting those withdrawal negotiations confirms that that's the Iraqi position as well, Obama does look like he knows something. This doesn't make Obama an international relations genius but it does make his position and that of our ally consonant.

    As to my moral certainty, That's your characterization. I am certain that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder of historical proportions carried out by a weak minded chief executive under the influence of Neoconservatives with an agenda of their own. These same people are agitating for a new war with Iran. How many wars will it take before you want to call it a day and let the Israeli's fight their own wars.

    It's true that Obama is an opportunist like Bill Clinton who will take the easy way out of most situations. While morally squalid, this sort of leadership is still to be preferred to that of McCain who has hired the same Neocons to "Advise" him on foreign affairs. These are the experts that told us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was plotting with AL Queda, was hated by all his people and could be easily replaced with a happy go lucky Arab version of Switzerland within days of his ouster.

    Al Queda had no meaningful presence in Iraq under the old regime. It took our blundering destruction of the dictatorship to give it a foothold. Given that, why should we support Democracy in Iraq? What will you do if the people of Iraq decide they want an Al Queda government? How important will the provincial elections be then? Judging by our reaction to the democratic election of Hamas in Palestine I think we would look all the more foolish.

    Osama Bin Laddhen is still alive and organizing his merry men years after he murdered thousands of our fellow countrymen. Isn't it curious that we are arguing about our position in Iraq? At the end of the day we have,
    1. Failed to find a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq.
    2. Failed to turn the Iraqi people into our loving pupils.
    3. failed to make the flow of oil to the US either more secure or more affordable.

    No power on earth thinks we "Won" in Iraq. It is simply delusional to think that if we leave our own mistake on our own terms we will garner the respect of either friends or our enemies.