The Date for Defeat/Surrender has been set

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2008-08-25 09:54am

Iraq 'deal' on 2011 troop pullout

The Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki has said agreement has been reached with the US to end the foreign troop presence in the country by 2011.

He told tribal leaders in Baghdad the two parties had agreed on a "fixed date, which is the end of 2011".

The deal, which has been in negotiation for 10 months, still needs to be approved by the Iraqi Presidential Council and by the parliament.

There are currently around 147,000 US troops in Iraq.

+http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7580968.stm

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2008-08-25 10:26am

Is Bush trying to screw McCain? He certainly isn't doing McCain any favors.

Post by **Edi** » 2008-08-25 10:40am

BBC sites don't need link suppressors. At least the Republicans can't hang this on Obama now. He can just point out that Bush did it himself and they can go home and STFU.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-08-25 11:08am

They're trying to erode what they think is Obama's one real point. After all, they think that McCain doesn't need Iraq to stand on, because he's a foreign policy and military expert, because in the military he got his million-dollar ass and million-dollar plane shot down by some poor $1.95 grunt. Then he got to meet a lot of foreign people, because (in case you hadn't heard) he was a POW.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-08-25 11:38am

Coyote wrote:They're trying to erode what they think is Obama's one real point. After all, they think that McCain doesn't need Iraq to stand on, because he's a foreign policy and military expert, because in the military he got his million-dollar ass and million-dollar plane shot down by some poor $1.95 grunt. Then he got to meet a lot of foreign people, because (in case you hadn't heard) he was a POW.

On the other hand, they've just undermined their own "surrender" argument against the Democrats since they've just agreed to terms themselves, so that gets taken off the table. Unless they try to have their cake and eat it too, in which case Obama gets to point out that "hey, the administration itself set the timetable for withdrawal, which means they've come around to our side of thinking instead of carrying on a failed policy. If I'm all for "surrender", as you say, then it looks like Mr. Bush is as well."

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-08-25 11:46am

No, it's only "surrender" when a Democrat does it. When a Republican does it, it's "a wise policy of strategic withdrawal after careful consultation with our allies in theatre".

See, Republicans are better at military stuff, because they've done so well at evading service in any real capacity for so long. That's why when Dick Cheney gets out of Vietnam service by doing pretty much the exact same thing Clinton did (college deferments) he did it for the greater glory of all thing lapel-flag-pin-like, whereas Clinton did it because he's a commie-sexual.

Remember, the Bush withdrawal plans is later than what Obama wanted. They will have their cake and eat it too, because they can say "well, Bush saw the wisdom in getting out of Iraq at the right time, whereas Obama wanted to pull out too early, all reckless-like, and leave the job undone. Those extra few months are vital to the stability and security of a future Iraq."

You know that's how it will be spun... and many in the American public will lap it up, because "Republicans know foreign policy and defense stuff" and "Democrats just... don't".

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2008-08-25 12:39pm

Were McCain to win I would fully expect the situation on the ground to dictate that we stay beyond 2011.

When Obama wins, well, it won't matter.

Really, I just think this is the tWat administration trying to salavage Captain Chucklefuck's legacy by setting up the withdrawal before a Democrat can do it so that they can say that they ended (read: won) the war. And it only cost a trillion dollars and about 1.25 million lives...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-08-25 04:22pm

Now the interesting question is if Obama will be able to withdraw troops sooner or will be locked into the Bush plan by inertia, Iraq considerations, military planning, etc.

I do think it's a clever effort to help McCain, though. He can say that the withdraw is happening due to the considerations of the current commander and chief, so it's okay even though he formally thought it was a wrong thing to do, and therefore once in office he will abide by it.

Then it also guarantees that troops are out of Iraq in time for him, i.e., a Republican, to win re-election. The date was almost certainly set as part of a scheme by which to guarantee that Republicans run the government for the next eight years, not by any conditions on the ground.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-08-25 04:45pm

I happen to think that someone in the administration thinks that McCain has enough of a chance to win that's unnecessary to leave landmines for the next president.

Or undesirable, at least.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-08-25 04:51pm

I suspect that this actually has nothing to do with the November elections. Bush is striving to get his legacy in - he thinks things really are hunky dory over there, and if someone else pulls out then they get the credit, not him.

Scottish Ninja · Post by **Scottish Ninja** » 2008-08-25 05:15pm

Coyote wrote:See, Republicans are better at military stuff, because they've done so well at evading service in any real capacity for so long. That's why when Dick Cheney gets out of Vietnam service by doing pretty much the exact same thing Clinton did (college deferments) he did it for the greater glory of all thing lapel-flag-pin-like

Don't forget getting married for the marriage deferment, and then sexing up his wife when they announced the ending of deferments for married men without children.

It's true; Lynne Cheney was born almost nine months to the day after that was announced.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-08-25 10:52pm

Ender wrote:I suspect that this actually has nothing to do with the November elections. Bush is striving to get his legacy in - he thinks things really are hunky dory over there, and if someone else pulls out then they get the credit, not him.

Actually it probably has plenty to do with November inasmuch as Maliki and his guys realized they basically had Bush by the balls. He could leave troops without an international mandate and lose ANY chance of a positive legacy or he could aceed to the Iraqi wishes for a hard date.

Note how the closer we kept getting to the conventions and the election the more the Bush Admin's language went from "productive talks which will elt us stay until the job is finished" to "productive talks that will set time horizon goals" to "fuck it here is a date which the Iraqis gave us and we accepted because there isn't enough time left to renegotiate"

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-08-26 02:30am

Patrick Degan wrote:On the other hand, they've just undermined their own "surrender" argument against the Democrats since they've just agreed to terms themselves, so that gets taken off the table.

Considering the Republican leaders' outright betrayal of the US military service members who helped George W. Bush win the 2004 election (vetoing increases in the Montgomery GI Bill and other veteran benefits, underfunding the VA to the point where its director tried to cover-up the number of veterans who commited suicide because they didn't receive mental health treatments, etc.), I doubt a withdrawal will make the Republicans' standing among US citizens any worse.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2008-08-26 07:41am

Sidewinder wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:On the other hand, they've just undermined their own "surrender" argument against the Democrats since they've just agreed to terms themselves, so that gets taken off the table.
Considering the Republican leaders' outright betrayal of the US military service members who helped George W. Bush win the 2004 election (vetoing increases in the Montgomery GI Bill and other veteran benefits, underfunding the VA to the point where its director tried to cover-up the number of veterans who commited suicide because they didn't receive mental health treatments, etc.), I doubt a withdrawal will make the Republicans' standing among US citizens any worse.

Are as many Americans aware of that as you think though? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone about that.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-08-26 11:26pm

The Spartan wrote:
Sidewinder wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:On the other hand, they've just undermined their own "surrender" argument against the Democrats since they've just agreed to terms themselves, so that gets taken off the table.
Considering the Republican leaders' outright betrayal of the US military service members who helped George W. Bush win the 2004 election (vetoing increases in the Montgomery GI Bill and other veteran benefits, underfunding the VA to the point where its director tried to cover-up the number of veterans who commited suicide because they didn't receive mental health treatments, etc.), I doubt a withdrawal will make the Republicans' standing among US citizens any worse.
Are as many Americans aware of that as you think though? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone about that.

Servicemembers at least are aware of it to the point that party affiliation is now the largest statistically significant indicator amongst miloitary personnel adn that service alone does not distinguish members. Simply put wheras before a dem in uniform was statistically more likely to support a republican candidate than an equivalent (age/race/etc) dem in the general populace. Today a dem in uniform is virtually indistinguishable in terms of preference from an equivalent dem in the populace as a whole.

mingo · Post by **mingo** » 2008-08-26 11:32pm

irishmick79 wrote:Is Bush trying to screw McCain? He certainly isn't doing McCain any favors.

McCain doesn't need W's help, he's doing fine all by his self.

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2008-08-27 01:18am

mingo wrote:
irishmick79 wrote:Is Bush trying to screw McCain? He certainly isn't doing McCain any favors.
McCain doesn't need W's help, he's doing fine all by his self.

Considering how badly Junior fucked up Iraq, he probably thinks in his cretinous coke addled brain that this while help McSame somewhat.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-08-27 10:16am

What is this going to to with american bases in Iraq? I'd been hearing that we were building permanent ones since we lost the Saudi ones? Honestly I would like us to keep the bases for pure strategic importance though I don't know how that would work with Iraqs government.

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2008-08-27 02:04pm

My guess is that the agreement will have us leaving those "permanent bases" too. Honestly, I'm getting sick of all those foreign bases that we have.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-08-27 03:29pm

Pelranius wrote:My guess is that the agreement will have us leaving those "permanent bases" too. Honestly, I'm getting sick of all those foreign bases that we have.

I suspect, but could not prove, that this was one of th ereasons why W Bush has been pushing for Georgia to be brought into NATO as soon as possible-- that way the US could put bases in Georgia that are a stone's throw from the Middle East without having to worry about "Muslim Sensitivites (TM)". Sure Turkey is already there, but Turkey is big enough to tell the US to get stuffed, and is likely to do so from time to time so they can retain their own Muslim street cred.

Georgia would have been a cherry spot for US bases, since the Georgian economy would be 1/2 oil, 1/2 US bases, and not much else.

Oh, well!

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2008-08-27 03:58pm

Junior and McSame will probably insist on building bases in Georgia anyway. Another problem with the Turks is that we might end up getting embroiled in their domestic disputes with the army and nationalists against the religious parties, to say nothing of the Kurds.

Another nice thing about Georgia is that they have a slight possibility of becoming a NATO member, which will never happen to Iraq.