Out of Iraq in 2011?:
From the Wall Street Journal:
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq's cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal from the country, according to senior American officials.Hat tip: Kevin Drum.
The draft agreement sets 2011 as the date by which all remaining U.S. troops will leave Iraq, according to Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Humood and other people familiar with the matter.
Were you looking for Little Green Footballs and get lost on the way?
(Also, this is good news for John McCain! :P )
A question in earnest for the VC comment section: let's assume for a moment that this is last year and John McCain is still in favor of an indefinite occupation in which we would stay in Iraq much in the same way we stayed in Korea or Japan. Then, lets assume everything went perfectly, and Iraqi oil began flowing and the Iraqi MPs began singing Kumbaya and everything just seemed to work.
In this world, how would Iraqi oil pay for the costs we put into the country, as was the plan when we went in? I assume with a friendly government American countries might get preference for drilling contracts, but on top of that would our government be given some kind of access to oil revenue to help with our wartime deficit? I've never seen how this would work out for anyone other than the companies that would benefit from access. But how does that help with an inflating dollar? Thanks.
WallMurdoch Street Journal? seriously?quite a shame, actually .. biggest credibility decline in a US newspaper ever, AFAIK. not that such a thing is objectively measured ...
Radovan, meet the NY Times. NY Times, meet Radovan.
Also, have you any information on dems opposing an islamist takeover in Iraq?
If you measure credibility by circulation, then you are right, the NYT has had a greater decline. If you consider credibility to be better measured by journalistic objectivity, I doubt there's a lick of difference between the NYT and the WSJ. Both are hopelessly partisan rags for their respective affiliations.
The editorial page of the WSJ is obviously partisan, just like the editorial page of the NYT. The news seciton of the WSJ is not conservative, unlike the news section of the NYT, which is clearly liberally biased. Of course, if you consider coverage of business and economic issues to be de facto conservative, like many on the left, then the WSJ would be conservative. But if you look at political reporting, the WSJ is fairly in the middle of most papers, which makes it center-left. Of course, some have found it to be far more liberal than that - see, e.g.., the UCLA study on media bias using Americans for Democratic Action ratings as a baseline: study press release
Regardless of the content of the WSJ, Radovan said that the WSJ had "the biggest credibility decline in a US newspaper ever." Which, frankly, is just stupid when you compare it to the "Newspaper of Record." And, yes, its decining circulation is indicative of its diminishing credibility.
Way to encourage some educated legal discussion, Kerr. Are you going to discuss the legal niceties of BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!, next?
OTOH, one of McCain's biggest selling points has been that he, unlike Obama, will bring us "victory in Iraq." If there's an agreement in place as to when we board ship &sail home, I'm not quite sure how that point will work.
Of course, this could be the 2d or 3d time in 8 years that the White House has done something on the merits. (The only other example that comes to mind was Bush's opposition to Putin's puppet in Ukraine.)
Everyone on the left: attack the WSJ!
Everyone on the Right: Attack Orin!
Anderson and ahendo10, you are being disturbingly substantive. I can only assume this will soon change as this thread devolves.
I predict no further problems after the pullout. The US is such a winner!
I think we have achieved a significant military victory in Iraq but that only permits the Iraqis to further achieve a political victory which, in my mind, would be when the Iraqis produce a stable and sustained democracy. In short we have achieved tactical victory but strategic victory will have to come later. There will continue to be random terror attacks such as IRA attackes in Northern Ireland. But AQ and the Shiite factions do not appear to be able to overthrow the established government.
The "Shiite factions" don't need to overthrow the established government, one of them is already the established government. As for the success of the surge, we still haven't seen the provincial elections that were promised for last year and most of the other political benchmarks have not been met. What we will have when we leave is a Shiite dominated government friendly to Iran.
Would it make sense for current candidates to stress that their own views on Iraq would take precedence over any last-minute deals thrown together by the current administration?
Also, Anderson: Bush's opposition to the Farm Bill's renewal on grounds of excessive subsidies to farmers comes to mind as another example of doing something on the merits.
Note: Checking the HTed source, it seems the WSJ and the HTed post have both updated their entries to indicate that "combat" troops will be out by 2011, not all troops.
As to the Shia in Iraq--this is a no brainer--70 or so percent of the population are Shia and of they will dominate the government; there is a common religious thread, but there is no indication the more secular Iraqis want to establish a theocracy; they proved that by destroying Al Sadr and his "army." I am hard pressed to see some kind of longstanding alignment given their past history; but if you can provide some rationale for such an alignment, I will certainly listen to it.
As to your point about negotiating future agreements with foreign states, I don't think there is some kind of time limit forced on presidents where they can strike agreements with foreign states. And I don't think it is wise of candidates to be negotiating with foreign powers as part of their campaign. That is even worse and demonstrates remarkably bad judgment.
That's a simple untruth. 18 of 21 of the House benchmarks have been met.
But hey, as long as everybody's understanding of the "facts" of Iraq is captured in the personal political chunk of amber of their choice - be it 2003, 2001, 2005 or today, there's no reason that I should criticize you for passing off the superceded and formerly true facts of 2006 as the current truth. I'm sure you can find somebody else in the cognitive time capsule to support your position. Just because the facts on the ground change, is no reason for your beliefs about the best strategy to change. What kind of a lowlife sellout would you be, after all, to change your appraisal of the situation in response to changing circumstances on the ground?
Wow. I didn't know we still "occupied" Korea and Japan. That's probably a big surprise to Korea and Japan.
I hope the hope contained in the above pans out. But al-Sadr hasn't been destroyed, and the Mahdi Army might turn out to be the Iraqi analog of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Here's a pretty good article on the current situation of the Mahdi Army.
We're not at war, we're just using out entire military for the super-long victory party/occupation. The way you can tell it's not a war is that war rocks, and what's gonig on now kinda sucks. A real war, like those few months in Iraq, and World War II, is awesome! I can't wait for a few months in Iran and Russia!
Though I to enjoy parts of Iraq these days. I love how we keep on declaring victory every month or so. That part's my favorite!
Victory! Wooooo!
The risk of Islamist takeover was one of the major reasons why I opposed the invasion to begin with, as did many "dems".
You're absolutely right, provided you believe that the difference between six months and 8 years (at best) is something other than 'drastic.' Likewise for the difference between $50 billion and $547 billion (at best).
Rumsfeld told us that after six months only a "residual number" of troops would be needed. The same idea (that the war would be quick and easy) was also communicated in other ways (1/2/03):
A couple of weeks later Rumsfeld pushed the number down a bit:
He also hinted that the US would have to pay only part of this tab:
The actual cost so far turns out to be about $547 billion, or about eleven times greater than what Rumsfeld said. And there's reason to believe that the ultimate cost of the war will be $2.7 trillion. This forecast includes costs that are currently hidden, such as lifetime health care for wounded troops. $2.7 trillion would be 54 times greater than Rumsfeld's estimate. A slight budget overrun. That also would be enough money to give 98 grand to every person in Iraq. Or nine grand to every person in the US.
McCain was right there with other GOP leaders, making rosy predictions. He said this (9/24/02):
And this (1/22/03):
No portion of the marketing campaign for the war was not grossly exaggerated. The level of danger (allegedly posed to us by Saddam) was grossly exaggerated, and how quick and cheap the war would be was also grossly exaggerated.
This is the same group that is trying to tell us that it's earned the right to stay in charge. And one of its main techniques is to regularly rewrite the history of what it actually said. That's happening in this thread, and its evident in McCain's later statements (1/4/07):
That said, I don't think this will make a huge difference. It's been evident for a while that the U.S. war is winding down.
It's a bit too late to be worrying about "an islamist takeover in Iraq." I guess you don't know very much about Maliki and his background as a leader of the Dawa party. Andrew McCarthy, 12/8/06:
Michael Ledeen, 5/28/04:
More on Dawa:
Saddam was our friend before he wasn't. We an expect the same cycle with Maliki. We've replaced a secular thug who hated Iran with an Islamist thug who has close ties to Iran. And Maliki's connections with anti-American suicide terrorism are much clearer than any such ties on the part of Saddam. But the good news is that this exchange only cost us over 34,000 dead and wounded, and $2.7 trillion. Heckuva job, GOP.
And this, of course, is the Big Lie.
Saddam's Iraq was a client state of the USSR. Period. He was never "our friend."
This is surprisingly true. I rely on the "pink" Labor affiliated British-based Financial Times for my news on US politics. The contrast is rather stark: coverage of McCain and Obama uses noticeably fewer adjectives. Gone is the suble and biased modifiers used to characterize statements and events in Obama's favor. The analysis tends to be much more incisive, cutting to the quick on both Candidates.
There is a similar gulf on the recent Georgian events. FT places the US rhetoric and position in the middle of European sentiment. Meanwhile the WSJ and other US papers characterize the US as ranting from the far right. The LAT credulously reports Russian propaganda that the Georgians were largely US equip'd and trained. Never mind that this was flatly repudiated by the pentagon. A fact neglected, likely due to failure on their part to wrap their minds around the idea that it might not be true.
So we were on Iran's side in the Iraq-Iran war?
I suggest you read some of Regan's NSSDs on the matter (classified, but you can find redacted copies around).
Of course not. But for some strange reason, Reagan and Rummy nevertheless assisted Saddam with lots of useful goodies, like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides (deadly against humans, that is). This happened right around the same time that Saddam was gassing people. One can only imagine what we would have done if Saddam was "our friend."
More details via the link that Oren cited.
You're not citing a specific article, so it's not clear if "largely" is LAT's word, or yours. And the word is pretty vague. But it might be worth noting that we sold Georgia $25 million in arms in 2007 (link, pdf).
We also have 130 "military trainers" there.
You're also not indicating what Pentagon statement you have in mind. That would also be interesting to know.
Of course you're not bothering to be specific, but you're probably talking about data that's available here. Indeed, the items I mentioned don't show up in that data. There are two reasons, and you mentioned one of them. SIPRI only tracks transfers that are publicly reported. They indeed do not try to track "secret" transfers. Also, "the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database covers only what it defines as major conventional weapons." None of the items I mentioned fall into that classification.
But SIPRI is still helpful, because it tells us that Reagan sold Saddam dozens of helicopters right around the time that Saddam was using helicopters to gas thousands of civilians.
The transfers I mentioned (cluster bombs etc) are well-documented. More detail on this is in another thread (start here and keep scrolling).
You seem to be trying really hard to prove how ignorant you are. The source I cited regarding our arms sales to Georgia was the US State Dept (and I realize the Bush administration really can't be trusted most of the time, but I don't think that's your point). And you don't even have to click on the link to see that I'm pointing to an official government source. All you have to do is point at it (assuming that your browser is set to display its status bar).
By the way, nice job with the straw man. I didn't claim we were Saddam's "largest supplier." He had lots of other friends, too. But he got some things through us that he apparently had a hard time finding elsewhere.
No no no. Those were CIVILIAN helicopters sold by Bell to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Bell was fully aware they cannot be "in any way configured for military use". Just because Bell's Italian counterpart and the South Koreans both notified the State Dept shortly thereafter that Iraq solicited bids to militarize their newly purchased helicopters does not mean that the Ministry of Defense intended them to be configured for military use!
Good point. And actually, it all makes perfect sense. After all, Saddam was using helicopters to gas CIVILIANs. So maybe that means no rules were broken.
It appears now that the Iraqis and Americans are so confident of victory that the US troops are going to start handing over defensive missions in the cities to the Iraqis over the next ten months, which is the really interesting bit of this news, not the 2011 time horizon.
This is in sharp contrast to 2006, when Obama opposed the Surge that won the war and wanted to cut and run in defeat during the battle.
This is the difference between opposing D-Day and retreating home in defeat in May 1944 and coming home in 1945 and 46 after winning the war.
The real difference is between not choosing to go to war in Iraq in the first place, having the resources available to actually finish the job in Afghanistan and not having a resurgent Iran and having spent the better part of a trillion dollars and 4000+ American lives with the result of a very marginally pro-western government in Iraq, a strong Iran, an Afghanistan that was left to dangle at the precipice of Taliban control again, and dramatically weakened standing in the international world when the need for intervention comes up else where. McCain was right about the surge, which made the best of a crappy situation, but it was still a crappy situation that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.
You new around here? If so, here's one rule: If you say the US should be fighting someplace else, we know you would be objecting to that, if we were really doing it.
And, if we get around to it, you will.
34,000 US casualties and $2.7 trillion spent on a pointless war is a "straw" only in your alternate universe.
There are thugs and crooks all over the world, and I condemn them all, but I have a special duty to deal with the ones on my payroll. The 'America-Can-Do-No-Wrong Gang' has trouble grasping this simple concept. Likewise for this simple concept: "it is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."
Whatever you do, don't let reality interfere with your fantasies. The highest approval ratings ever achieved by any president, ever (90%), were achieved by Bush right after he invaded Afghanistan.
3-5% were unsure, and 5-7% disapproved. And it's reasonable to suppose that some of the people who disapproved were people who wanted Bush to act sooner and more aggressively.
So maybe we'll be lucky enough to hear you explain your basis for what you "know." And you can tell us about the collective "you" you're imagining.
Wait, we overthrew Saudi Arabia? Good riddance to that thieving two-timing Al Saud dynasty.
What always confuses me about the people espousing this attitude are often the same ones who are so skeptical of the government's motives and competence in other areas. American foreign policy is run by politicians, the same people who have given us such brilliant ideas as agricultural subsidies, abstinence-only drinking laws for 20-year-olds, and the War on Drugs. But for some reason they think the government's foreign policy is not subject to criticism of any kind, except as being insufficiently willing to start unnecessary wars.
Please try to keep up. Your talking points went stale years ago. In 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee (when it was still controlled by Republicans) said this (pdf):
If you're concerned about people "nurturing Islamic terrorism," you should be complaining about Dubya's pals the Saudis (like Oren said). Not to mention Pakistan, which Bush has been arming, even though they created the Taliban. And let's not forget Maliki, whose track record of "nurturing Islamic terrorism" is quite distinct.
Replacing a secular thug with an Islamist thug is not my idea of "success."
By the way, you should show your proof that the 'surge,' and not other factors (like the Anbar Awakening which predated the surge) is the best explanation for the current pause (relatively) in violence.
And a pause is all it is. Sunni and Shia started fighting over a thousand years ago. If you think they're suddenly done, because Bush and McCain sprinkled some of their magical 'surge' dust, then I guess you also believe in the tooth fairy.
The idea that Maliki gives a shit about "demoractic mores" is roughly as funny as the idea that Bush does.
Your post at 8.21.2008 1:28pm (contrasting the actual cost and length of the Iraq war with the predictions) was really good. But I disagree that Saddam was our friend. We helped him in the early 1980s because he was losing a war to Iran. We saw that toppling him would lead to a Shi'ite dominated government that would increase Iranian influence in the region. We also remembered that in the first Gulf war. We forgot it in 2003 -- another sign of just how incompetent this administration is.
joe kowalski
The real difference is between not choosing to go to war in Iraq in the first place, having the resources available to actually finish the job in Afghanistan and not having a resurgent Iran and having spent the better part of a trillion dollars and 4000+ American lives with the result of a very marginally pro-western government in Iraq, a strong Iran, an Afghanistan that was left to dangle at the precipice of Taliban control again, and dramatically weakened standing in the international world when the need for intervention comes up else where. McCain was right about the surge, which made the best of a crappy situation, but it was still a crappy situation that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.
Bingo.
This statement seems pretty Manichaean itself, unless one truly believes there exist people who believe that American foreign policy has no flaws or who admit only perfect good or perfect evil.
We'll see how democratic Maliki is come the next election. And given our own experience of Catholics and Protestants getting along as long as they have more important things to distract them - like making money - I don't see the grounds for such unrelenting pessimism vis-a-vis Sunnis and Shia. Are we to ignore our own experience in examining options for dealing with the terrorism problem?
I can't believe I'm having to make the pro nationbuilding arguments after I voted for Bush in 2000 specifically because he promised not to go out looking for excuses to nationbuild. 9/11 changed that calculation for Bush. It changed it for me (though I'm unhappy Bush has hemorrhaged cash like a trust-funder). What puzzles me is that the former advocates of nationbuilding seem to have forgotten those very arguments entirely.
If you hang out for a while at, say, the Power Line forum, you will run into a bunch of people whose worldview is pretty darn close to what you just described. Not that they will say "American foreign policy has no flaws;" it's that the flaw is that we're not killing enough Muslims quickly enough.
The problem I have with the GOP concept of nationbuilding is that it seems to be mostly interested in building nations other than ours. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that colossal contract shenanigans are much easier to hide when they happen on the other side of the planet and are obscured by the fog of war.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.