Rejecting Timetables

Gareth Porter reminds us that this isn't the first time Nouri al-Maliki has tried to get the Bush administration to agree to a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, writing about a summer 2006 episode that the Bush administration tried, successfully, to walk back. Jim Henley wonders if Bush could have saved the GOP's electoral prospects by just agreeing to what, at the time, pretty much all the major Iraqi factions were looking for. It's a bit hard to say, but it's just incredibly saddening to think of the fairly large number of decent opportunities to extricate ourselves from Iraq that were passed up in 2005 and early 2006 -- what if we'd followed up the famous 2005 "purple finger" elections with a negotiated plan to withdraw forces from the country? -- in the name of Bush's imperial dreams.

DoD photo by Pfc. Sarah De Boise, U.S. Army.

Comments

Notice how McCain isn't talking about a permanent presence, a la Korea, anymore. Although you know he wants it.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 29, 2008 1:33 PM

Bush wants to be thought of as a great man, better than his dad. Instead, he's going down in history as one of the worst presidents ever on a whole host of issues. The only straw he has to grasp onto is that Iraq will somehow manage to turn out just wonderfully, and he'll be vindicated.

McCain just likes to impose his will upon others.

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 1:50 PM

Jim Henley wonders if Bush could have saved the GOP's electoral prospects

Are you suggesting he could have chosen to lose the war to win the election?

Posted by MayBee | July 29, 2008 1:58 PM

No permanent bases meant losing. A pull out was not an option.

Posted by carsick | July 29, 2008 2:02 PM

"Are you suggesting he could have chosen to lose the war to win the election?"

Is this a snark? I can't even tell.

Posted by freddiemac | July 29, 2008 2:03 PM

Luckily, Obama seems to have signed on to the McCain plan. Obama now agrees with McCain and Bush that the number of troops we have in Iraq must be based on the conditions on the ground.

Now it's good to see Obama finally coming around to the McCain/Bush position regarding troops. Let's see if Matthew and the rest of the Obama surrogates acknowledge finally (as Obama has) that McCain and Bush were right, and Obama was wrong.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 2:09 PM

I love how the GOPers can't keep their talking points straight, and keep lurching back and forth between "Obama has changed his position" and "Obama won't change his position." It really drives home the panicked disarray into which they've been thrown.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 2:15 PM

Luckily, Bush and McCain seem to have signed onto the Obama plan. McCain/Bush now agrees with Obama that combat troops must be withdrawn based on a timetable.

Now it's good to see McCain/Bush finally coming around to the Obama position regarding troops. Let's see if Al and the rest of the McCain/Bush surrogates acknowledge finally (as McCain/Bush has) that Obama was right, and McCain/Bush was wrong.

Posted by freddiemac | July 29, 2008 2:17 PM

Matt,

The Bush administration never wanted the United States to leave Iraq. That's why timetables were always rejected. That's why we're talking about the "horizon"--something to always be seen in front of you, but never to be reached. We're always supposed to stay in Iraq. Let's not get into the thought that the Bushies ever desired to leave Iraq alone. Never.

Posted by Dan | July 29, 2008 2:19 PM

Notice how McCain isn't talking about a permanent presence, a la Korea, anymore.

Notice how Obama is now talking about a "residual force", the size of which will be "entirely conditions based", designed to "protect our bases" and "engage in counterterrorism activities". (too lazy to link, it's hot, but you can google it). Also, no word on private military contractors, who are already a big part the show. I really don't know what Obama wants, let's just say he's keeping all options on the table.

Posted by novakant | July 29, 2008 2:26 PM

Sorry, f-mac. I'm a big fan, but you're misreading the intention of Al's comment.

The narrative you've posted is the one currently established in the media. Al recognizes that, and is inverting it to limit its effectiveness.

By responding to him as you've done, you give the impression that both narratives carry equal weight, thus doing Al's work for him. Major fail.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 2:36 PM

Obama now agrees with McCain and Bush that the number of troops we have in Iraq must be based on the conditions on the ground.

Snort. Chortle. Man, if you haven't figured out that Obama first spoke about conditions over two years ago, and has mentioned it over and over since, I just have to assume you can't read for comprehension. It certainly would explain a lot.

Notice how Obama is now talking about a "residual force", the size of which will be "entirely conditions based", designed to "protect our bases" and "engage in counterterrorism activities".

As compared to Bush/McCain's dream of nearly 60 permanent bases that we will occupy for 100 years, I'll take whatever Obama dishes up.

Also, no word on private military contractors, who are already a big part the show.

It will take some time to fix, but I think the vast failures (including electrocution of our troops), sub-par delivery, overbilling, fraud, violence, etc. have pretty much shown our experiment in privatization of the military to be a failure. Of course, the big GOP donors made our REALLY well.

I really don't know what Obama wants, let's just say he's keeping all options on the table.

He wants a common sense solution that will staunch the flow of our country's blood and treasure in Iraq, and to reaffirm our commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan. McCain wants a permanent U.S. military presence to intimidate Iran, no matter what the Iraqi gov't and people want us to do. He says he wants to win in Afghanistan, but can't seem to figure out where the troops will magically come from.

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 2:46 PM

Hey Al,

You said:

"Let's see if Matthew and the rest of the Obama surrogates acknowledge finally (as Obama has) that McCain and Bush were right, and Obama was wrong."

Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead U.S. soldiers that died for no reason other than to serve the economic interests of lazy Americans addicted to oil and earning a profit no matter the cost. This isn't a game. The entire war has been a disgrace to the American name and idiots like you run around talking about "victory" v. "defeat" and obsess over whether Obama admitted he was wrong about the "surge" and other meaningless slogans.

Please are dying. Our economy is wrecked. We are less safe as a nation. We are doing the exact things that promote terrorism against our nation. We've turned a somewhat stable country into chaos. Countless people are dead and dying. And for what? So we can get some no bid oil contracts?

Wake up you insensitive piece of shit.

Posted by Someone that Doesn't Believe in Unnecessary Wars | July 29, 2008 2:47 PM

Notice how Obama is now talking about a "residual force", the size of which will be "entirely conditions based", designed to "protect our bases" and "engage in counterterrorism activities".

Actually, I noticed that last October. I proceeded to notice it in every single one of the Democratic debates. I noticed how Bill Richardson tried to get to his left by pointing out that he supported "no residual force." I noticed how Dennish Kucinich spent most of his time talking about how Obama and Clinton didn't want to get out of Iraq as quickly as he did. I noticed how Mike Gravel asked, "Who do you want to bomb, Barack?" while arguing that Obama was too hawkish.

On the other hand, I don't recall John McSame endorsing any timelines for withdrawal, talking about moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, or talking about leaving Iraq at all...until last week. And as you might have noticed, I'm a bit of a political geek, and I tend to keep pretty close track of these things.

If I were running a campaign and my candidate was going to perform the Mother of All Flip-Flops, you know what I'd do? I spend all of my time accusing my opponent of flip-flopping on the same issue, just to muddy the waters. Yeah, that's totally what I'd do.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 3:49 PM

Notice how Obama is now talking about a "residual force", the size of which will be "entirely conditions based", designed to "protect our bases" and "engage in counterterrorism activities".

Ah. The Murtha Plan. When did the Republicans stop calling it "cut and run," and start arguing that it represents a seamless continuation of the Bush/McCain policy?

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 3:57 PM

I'll take whatever Obama dishes up.

See, I vastly prefer Obama over both McCain and Clinton. Also, I'm not sure if the immediate withdrawal, that has been demanded by many Democrats for a long time now, is a feasible option at all, or rather if it is the best option for the Iraqi people. In that sense, I might actually more sympathetic towards Obama's intuitions, than many here, though I'm not happy with the general imperialist nature of US Middle East policy - we'll have to wait and see how this will actually play out under Obama.

What I can't stand, though, is the cognitive dissonance of those who pretend that Obama is the "withdrawal candidate" and that he has been consistent throughout. Once he had won the peace voters over to beat Clinton in the primaries, he clearly shifted gears and it's just hypocritical to pretend otherwise. And his currently stated policies would allow him to stay in Iraq forever.

Also putting your faith in a politician whatever he might dish up just because he's the lesser evil, is never a good option. I know you all want Obama to win and I do to, and I also know that it will be a bare-knuckle fight in which the stakes are high - that doesn't mean that I'm willing to disengage my brain until November.

Posted by novakant | July 29, 2008 5:39 PM

Novakant, I really don't know what you're talking about. 16 months IS an immediate withdrawal. It's the upper limit, but I've never heard of a plan that takes less than 9 months.

As for the original post, I've always had trouble understanding why the Republicans didn't simply declare victory and retreat to permanent bases while civil war rages outside.

I thought that was the beauty of the War With no Winning: they can, at any time, say they've won (like they're doing right now). Since there's never been an objective, there's no metric for achieving the objective.

And I'm so sick of the war that I'm fine with that, as long as we hang the traitors that provoked it.

Posted by Luke | July 29, 2008 6:30 PM

16 months IS an immediate withdrawal.

Apparently you missed the bit about the residual force and thus the whole point.

Posted by novakant | July 29, 2008 7:23 PM

Once he had won the peace voters over to beat Clinton in the primaries, he clearly shifted gears and it's just hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

He's changed the emphasis of his rhetoric as he's entered different portions of the campaign, but the positions he's articulated have been totally consistent since he entered this race.

He's been talking about a residual force all along - that's why Bill Richardson was falling all over himself to emphasize that his plan had no residual forces, to differentiate his plan from those of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Biden. Remember?

You tell me: what has Obama changed his position on?

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 9:29 PM

A residual force of unknown size (his advisers said something about 50.000 and that is presumably not counting contractors) staying in Iraq for an open-ended period of time to protect bases (you don't need to build bases, they're already there and protecting them alone will take a sizable number of troops) and undertake counter-terrorism missions of an unknown scale (thus undercutting Iraqi sovereignty) - this sounds like a permanent occupation in a new guise to me.

Now if you want to argue that Obama has been campaigning for a permanent occupation all along and that Democratic voters chose him because he championed a permanent occupation - be my guest.

Posted by novakant | July 30, 2008 5:07 AM

The I guess you don't know what the term "occupation" means.

It's funny, now the Murtha Plan is being called a "permanent occupation."

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 30, 2008 11:50 AM

And it's funny how Obama's rebranding of Bush policy suddenly turns an occupation into, oh, I don't know what really - something totally different, I guess. If a foreign force controls your airspace and is able to independently conduct military operations, as well as arrest and detain citizens at will in your country - then that's a pretty good sign you're being occupied.

You have to go to the far left end of the political spectrum nowadays to find somebody willing to call a spade a spade - shame really.

Posted by novakant | July 30, 2008 4:20 PM