US in Iraq: We're Outta Here

1 view
Skip to first unread message

NY.Trans...@blythe.org

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 4:00:54 PM10/25/06
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

US in Iraq: We're Outta Here

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

[But Iraq is saying, "Not so fast, Empire..." al Maliki is standing
up on his hind legs and already denying what the US claimed yesterday
about his offering a "timetable" by January. See next item. -NY Transfer]

sent by Simon McGuinness

The Independent - 25 October 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1927145.ece

US in Iraq: We're out of here

America signals dramatic shift in strategy, saying Iraq will
assume responsibility for security in '12 to 18 months'

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington and Colin Brown

In the firmest indication yet of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq,
America's most senior general there and its top civilian official have
drawn the outlines of a political and military plan that could see a
substantial pullout of US troops within 12 to 18 months.

Yesterday's announcement looked like a strategy change carrying
implications for British troops in Iraq, although President Bush's aides
deny any "dramatic shifts" in policy. It came after Mr Bush's spokesman
acknowledged on Monday that the President had cut and run from his
signature promise that America would "stay the course" in Iraq.

In a joint press conference in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US
ambassador, laid out a series of political steps that he claimed had
been agreed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, including a crackdown on
militias, a peace offer to insurgents and a plan for sharing oil
revenues. The measures, to be taken over the next year, would amount to
a new "national compact" between the Iraqi factions, he said. At the
same time, General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, said the
training of Iraqi security forces - essential for any orderly US
departure - was 75 per cent complete. Within 12 to 18 months, he said,
they would emerge as "the dominant force in Iraq", even though some
residual US military presence would be needed (as President Bush himself
has indicated).

The rare joint press conference took place amid deepening political
turmoil in Washington, where leading members of Mr Bush's own Republican
party are demanding a radical rethink of US strategy in Iraq. They argue
that current policies have all but failed, as sectarian and
anti-American violence threaten to overwhelm the country.

Coming after the White House formally abandoned Mr Bush's previous "stay
the course" formulation for US policy, the appearance by Mr Khalilzad
and General Casey seemed part of a carefully choreographed exercise to
signal, without explicitly saying so, that a timetable for pull-out -
long rejected by the President - was in fact taking shape.

The clear purpose was twofold: to reassure voters a fortnight before
mid-term elections that the administration had a workable policy for
Iraq and that, all appearances to the contrary, that policy was
achieving some success. Though 90 US troops have been killed this month,
and Iraqi civilian deaths are running at 100 a day or more, General
Casey maintained that 90 per cent of the attacks were occurring within a
30-mile radius of Baghdad.

But even he acknowledged the timetable was at the mercy of events on the
ground, which Washington was largely powerless to shape. American troop
levels might actually have to be increased to cope with the continuing
violence in Baghdad, where a return to order is vital if the country is
to be stabilised.

Tony Blair, in step with US policy, reassured the Iraqi Deputy Prime
Minister, Barham Salih, on Monday that the UK would not "cut and run"
from Iraq.

The Prime Minister will face a challenge today from backbench MPs who
have scheduled a debate on the Iraq exit strategy. But it will not
enable MPs to vote on the issue. "We had a debate and a vote to take us
into Iraq. We should have one now to take us out," said one Labour MP.

Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, is expected to repeat the Prime
Minister's insistence that British troops will stay "until the job is
done".

Mr Khalilzad offered no certainty of a political settlement, and
mentioned no timetable for disarming the Shia militias. This is the
issue which could tear asunder Mr Maliki's government, some of whose
members have ties with the largest of the militias.

Instead, Mr Khalilzad outlined a series of steps to be taken within "the
coming weeks", including a law on dividing oil revenues, action to
achieve "reconciliation" with discontented Sunni Muslims and former
Baathists, and a firm date for provincial elections.

But neither the ambassador nor General Casey made clear what might
happen if the Iraqi government and the emerging security forces did not
live up to US expectations. On both scores, there are strong doubts.

Washington has not disguised its frustration with Mr Maliki's government
and its refusal to confront the militias. And it is only eight months
since the Pentagon was forced to admit that the only Iraqi battalion
deemed capable of fighting on its own had been reclassified as needing
the back-up of US forces.

John Pike, the director of the Washington-based studies group Global
Security.Org, said: "I think they are saying that Americans are going to
be there for 18 more months, but we can start to draw that number down
before the next presidential election."

But pressures for a significant pull-out much sooner are intensifying.
Iraq threatens to drag Republicans to humiliating defeat at the 7
November elections, while Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has
become the latest senior Republican to turn on the White House. He said
yesterday: "We're on the verge of chaos."

A poll shows more than two-thirds of Americans think the war was a
mistake. A mere 20 per cent believe the US is winning, compared to 40
per cent 12 months ago. In an editorial yesterday, The New York Times
said Iraq could become "the worst foreign policy debacle in American
history". Stressing what was at stake, Mr Khalilzad called Iraq "the
defining challenge of our era" which would "profoundly shape... the
future of the world."

A changing message

'The US and our allies have prevailed. Now our coalition is engaged in
securing and reconstructing that country' -President Bush, 1 May 2003

'We must stay the course, because the end result is in our interest'
- -President Bush, 13 April 2004

'This is not "stay the course" but constant motion '
- -Bush spokesman, 23 October 2004

'This violence is going to go on for a long time'
- -Stephen Hadley, US National Security Adviser, yesterday

*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFP7/ciz2i76ou9wQRAhYpAJ4qUojJwcj13GqsLAC6OeIp0DXB3ACfakst
Bu/IboLjPl0KGKOB/hv5G+Y=
=WHF5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Acharya

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 3:35:11 PM10/28/06
to
<NY.Trans...@blythe.org> wrote in message
news:1161805788.19595...@servebbs.org...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> US in Iraq: We're Outta Here


A desperate try for good headlines by the deluded pseudo-democratic and
pseudo secular liberal media.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages