Bush Accepts Time Horizon for US Troop withdrawal
Bush has agreed in all but name with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on a timetable for US troop withdrawal from that country. As usual Bush's staff made up an implausible euphemism for the timetable, calling it a "time horizon" for "aspirational goals?" Language like that is a sure sign that Bush is too embarrassed to call it like it is.
Al-Maliki has gotten enormous pressure from the grand ayatollahs in Najaf and from the Sadr Movement not to sign away Iraqi sovereignty in making a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the US. Al-Maliki is said to have despaired of getting a SOFA past the Iraqi parliament, since the MPs demand a timetable for US withdrawal. He will instead initial a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bush administration. Al-Maliki and Bush hope this MOU will take on the force of law even though no legislature in either country will have passed it.
So Bush has thrown al-Maliki the lifeline of a few euphemisms. But a time horizon is just a fancy way of saying "timetable."
The Sadrists are already angry about al-Maliki's crackdown on them, and they demonstrate weeklly against the SOFA.
Bush probably wants US troops in Iraq because they help nail down energy contracts between the US and Iraqi concerns. Without 140,000 troops in the country, the Iraqis would not have a good reason to favor US concerns like Hunt over China's Sinopec or Russia's Lukoil (see the next item).
The Pan-Arab daily, al_Hayat, said that the euphemist language was a compromise on Bush's part.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/19/2008 12:54:00 AM
|
Facebook
16 Comments:
A "time horizon" is probably not a euphemism for timetable, but for the exact opposite: an open-ended commitment by the Iraqis to accept American troops for an unspecified time. So in an agreement there probably will be some talk about time, but nothing specific: no explicit dates, no clear time path, probably only general remarks about conditions which have to be met for the Americans to leave, preferably within a certain period (the so called "time horizon") - but only when those conditions are met. And meeting these conditions, of course, will be a question of interpretation (those conditions will be fuzzy enough to guarantee that).
So in the end, it will be the Americans who decide whether these conditions are met or not (and to a lesser extend the Iraqi's, but they probably won't have the power to force the Americans to decide that conditions are met).
So this "time-horizon" is (if I'm right) actually no time table at all, but just a device for Maliki (who is under pressure to demand a time table) to safe face.
It's standard spin technique (used by the type of PR firms that help shape Bush policy).
I don't think this is a time table, the white house is still saying Any decision to remove troops would be based on "improving conditions", not an "arbitrary date". A timetable has one important characteristic an actual date. The term "time horizons" can mean anything and consequently nothing.
The surge was invented in order to avoid the spectre of defeat that this administration would have as its legacy.
In actuality, the surge has been a continuous atrocity, with what took place in Sadr City to be compared with the worst excesses of previous armies - such as the Germans in Warzaw.
Given the unending cluelessness of the Bush White House, the surge has also very likely led Sistani to the conclusion that the U.S. is not to be trusted and that the U.S. presence must be ended.
Having fought any suggestion of a timeline, the Bush White House is now inventing new phrases, in order to keep up appearances.
This president initiated an illegal and unpremeditated assault upon a sovereign nation, with the aim of occupying and gaining control over that nation's natural resources, while also gaining an undisputed foothold in the region for his imperial ambitions.
He lied and maneuvered until U.S. forces were on Iraqi soil. For years, the goalposts have been moved in public statements, while the aim has been obvious from Day 1: to establish a lasting U.S. presence in Iraq, including the establishing of enormous military bases capable of securing dominion in the region; to assist international oil companies (interestingly the same that were once thrown out of Iraq by Saddam) in regaining their operations inside Iraq.
This has all been in the name of Democracy, of course.
I find it heartening that the Iraqis are standing up to the Bush/Cheney/Blair nest of manipulations and lies.
Their Iraq War has turned into one of history's greatest military blunders - and that will be their legacy.
The "time horizon" according to Ali al-Dabbagh, the official Iraqi government spokesman, means a definitive deadline for exit, but not a schedule for the draw-down which will depend on progress.
See (in Arabic):
http://www.radiosawa.com/arabic_news.aspx?id=1642570&cid=24
This sounds like a 180 degrees turn by Bush: it is an, as he calls it, arbitrary date.
But Dabbagh goes on to say that the exit date only applies to combat troops. Non-combat troops can stay for ever. It is that old yarn again and there is absolutely no way they can get away with that. Exit must mean 100%. What do non-combat armies do? Ballet dancing?
Juan
I see more and more blogs and pundits talking about the "victory in Iraq" and the stabilized security situation as an irrefutable fact.
Is this simply the next phase of "the surge is working" campaign or is there some truth here beyond the general exhaustion and the quiet areas that have been ethinically cleansed?
Not sure if they call it "aspirational" because they're too embarrassed to call it a deadline. I think they're making it quite clear that they're NOT accepting a deadline, and the "time horizon" language is simply for the benefit of Maliki so he can pretend to have gotten SOMETHING.
Similarly, I don't think Burns attending talks in Iran was much of a real change either, since the "no negotiate without suspenseion" precondition still applies.
I think some people have hoped so long for these policies to change that they're a bit too optimistic in seeing a change where there isn't any.
MSNBC has just reported that Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan.
After two hours of intense combat, some of the soldiers’ guns seized up because they expelled so many rounds so quickly. Insurgent bullets and dozens of rocket-propelled grenades filled the air. So many RPGs were fired at the soldiers that they wondered how the insurgents had so many.
US Troops recount deadly attack on Afghanistan outpost
ref : “So Bush has thrown al-Maliki the lifeline of a few euphemisms. But a time horizon is just a fancy way of saying "timetable."”
i rather think Mr. Bush is the only shamed pig's face in need of such a shallow euphemism for English lipstick. Après The Surge strategy, the Pentagon will cover its literal tracks during "withdrawal" as “all part of The Redeployment plan, all along.”
Mr. Obama says we should escalate the War by at least two Combat Divisions ~ that's 10,000 ground troops to Afghanistan; and the Pentagon's gone all AirWar haywire on us: “Afghanistan Hit by Record Number of US and NATO Bombs” <=> “Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan Unifying a Violent Resistance Movement Against US and NATO Occupation Forces”.
Mr. Obama and this Pentagon, now remind me of Mr. Nixon and that Pentagon, then ~ coming into 1969 with the "secret plan" to end the war.
A suggestion.
I believe it's high time we stop using the Pentagon's nomenclature to describe the actions in Iraq.
Rumsfeld deliberately used dead-enders, foreign elements, etc., in order to not lend legitimacy to the Iraqi resistance. His, and the administration's, aim was to establish a pro-U.S. government, in whatever fashion, and have this recognized as the legitimate representatives of Iraq.
Rumsfeld always immediately pounced whenever a journalist or other interlocutor used terminology that accorded legitimacy to the Iraqi resistance - knowing full well that if the appearance of such a resistance took hold, then the legitimacy of Rumsfeld's puppet government could be questioned.
For this reason, he even knocked down attempts to use the term "insurgents" or "insurgency."
In international law, a resistance movement can be recognized as the legitimate representatives of a nation, when that nation is under occupation by a foreign force, and this is what Rumsfeld feared more than anything else.
There is a resistance movement in Iraq, its aim is to rid the nation of the foreign occupiers and their influence, and we should call the beast by its proper name.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=rumsfeld+dead+enders&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Michael Massing Puts Boots On The Ground and Learns Things
Embedded in Iraq
At a moment of serious challenge, battered by two wars, ballooning debt, and a faltering economy, the United States appears to have lost its capacity to think clearly.
Consider what passes for national discussion on the matter of Iran. The open question is whether the United States should or will attack Iran if it continues to reject American demands to give up uranium enrichment. Ignore for the moment whether the United States has any legal or moral justification for attacking Iran. Set aside the question whether Iran, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed in a speech "is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons."
Focus instead on purely practical questions. By any standards Iran is a tough nut to crack: it is nearly three times the size of Texas, with a population of 70 million and a big income from oil which the world cannot afford to lose. Iran is believed to have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world's oil must pass on its way to market.
Keep in mind that the rising price of oil already threatens the world's economy. Iran also has a large army and deep ties to the population of Shiite coreligionists next door in Iraq. The American military already has its hands full with a hard-to-manage war in Iraq, and is proposing to send additional combat brigades to deal with a growing insurgency in Afghanistan.
And yet with all these sound reasons for avoiding war with Iran, the United States for five years has repeatedly threatened it with military attack. These threats have lately acquired a new edge.
Iran: The Threat
MSNBC has just reported that Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan.
Calling BO's drawdown a withdrawal is 3rd term spin just as confusing time horizon with a timetable for withdrawal is 2nd term spin.
Neither do GB nor BO plan on leaving Iraq. BO plans on redeploying the troops presently in Iraq to Afghanistan, and to a new front to be opened within Pakistan.
Although GB and BO seem both to have given Israel the green light for an attack on Iran, neither has yet formally come to grips with the repercussions of such an attack and the inevitable follow-on US attacks against Iran, or with Iranian attacks against the US troops in Iraq, the US troops in Afghanistan, Israel itself, and the American naval flotilla in the region.
Who knows. People so out of touch with American interests, with any human interests, might well have an occupation of Iran in mind as well.
Let's all sing together:
"Somewhere over the time horizon blue birds
sing...."
We just need to trust our Goober-in-Chief, folks.
Surprising how many commenters on this thread accept the White House's talking points that the language of time line gives Maliki the chance to save face, and imply that of course Maliki will sign once he has a few crumbs.
The White House is trying to con us, or else is living in fantasy land (which could well be the case). The negotiations are not over, and I personally doubt whether Maliki is going to sign at all.
The status of forces agreement, and the oil law, are the points where Iraq has a real hold over the United States. They are the crown jewels. Iraq cannot be forced to sign; there's nothing in it for Iraq. Only for the US. Why should they sign? Neither issue can pass the Iraqi parliament. Maliki doesn't look now as though he is going to sign even an interim agreement, without a specific timetable. He would be wise not to do so.
In fact he would be wiser to prevaricate, and not to sign anything at all. I have the idea that that is what he is actually doing.
Iraq has the US over a barrel. Why not exploit it?
But of course the White House is not going to tell us that. One should always disbelieve US official sources telling us what Maliki thinks.
So Bush has thrown al-Maliki the lifeline of a few euphemisms. But a time horizon is just a fancy way of saying "timetable."
Well, this would allow anything, it is only words. It can cover a withrawal, or not. Bush may only have changed the words in order to make the occupation more acceptable to the Iraqi and to the Americans on this election year.
What will be determinant is what succeeds on the ground : aka whether the US is withdrawing troops or not and whether after some months the withdrawal is complete or not; but as long as the US keeps a single military unit in Iraq, she is an occupying power : what kind of words dresses isn't important. In fact, the US may be able to stay forever if for instance she just states that she will withdraw in a few months, when the Iraqi have the situation in hands.. The only thing it takes are irrealist preconditions and delaying an effective withdrawal forever on any pretext.
Personnally, I'm not too optimistic. I don't see the US getting out soon, not even with Obama. They will draw things as long as they can, just in order to rape the fruits of what this war has cost them. They won't get out unless they realize that they are really defeated.
That said, of course, it would be better for Obama and the Dems, if Bush begins the withdrawal, so they would be able to deny that if they hadn't withdrawn the US would have won the war. But as said, I'm not too optimistic.
Post a Comment
<< Home