Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe long-running showdown over the proposed US-Iraq treaty, aimed at legitimizing the American occupation of Iraq, is coming to a head, and it doesn't look good for the United States.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tossed a bombshell today. In a news conference about the still-secret US-Iraqi talks, which began in March, Maliki for the first time said that the chances of securing the pact are just about nil, and instead he said Iraq will seek a limited, ad hoc renewal of the US authority to remain in Iraq, rather than a broad-based accord.
More important, Maliki and his top security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie added that Iraq intends to link even a limited accord to a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. Reports the Sydney Morning Herald:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.It was the first time the US-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would benefit militant groups.
[UPDATE July 8: Rubaie was even stronger today: "There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control. ... We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with (the US) side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq."]
Here's the quote from Maliki:
"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal."
Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."
Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.
But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.
Another factor is that Maliki, who is visiting the United Arab Emirates, is working hard to gain the support of the Sunni-led Arab regimes for his shaky coalition. The UAE and Jordan have both announced that they will be sending ambassadors to Baghdad, and King Abdullah of Jordan will himself make a visit to Baghdad soon, the first by an Arab head of state since the US invasion.
Despite US bungling, it seems increasingly likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia are working behind the scenes to negotiate a Shiite-Sunni accord in Iraq, but both Tehran and Riyadh will want it conditioned on a US withdrawal.
RSS
The Iraqs want us out.A majority of Americans want us out.I don't know how much more clearer it can be.
Posted by eniobob at 07/07/2008 @ 12:37pm
But McCave wants the US in Iraq for a 100 - 1000 years! Didn't John McCave call Iraq the "central front" of the war on terror, a crucible of America's ability to defeat violent Islamic extremists the world over. Didn't Maliki even speak with McCave first? Why is Maliki talking to hsuB? Maliki must want the US to lose the war on terror! I'm sure McCave will put out a statement any minute now letting his base know that Maliki hasn't any say in what the US does in Iraq... Who is Maliki anyway to tell the US what it can and cannot do in Iraq.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 12:48pm
And Maliki is obviously a 'cut and run' lib...
er, can he really do that if 'he' stays in Iraq?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 1:00pm
Well, obviously al-Maliki is among those liberal surrender-monkeys who want to see Iraq collapse and Al Qaeda and its ally Iran win in Iraq and just care about the US losing and embarassing George Bush because he obsessively hates him!!!!! Posted by Maskbeta at 07/07/2008 @ 12:38pm
I bet he is a communist.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:53pm
I hate to admit it, but classic, Mask, classic.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/07/2008 @ 4:04pm
I guess we are going to turn this show into a formal military occupation then. Then we might start fighting the Iraqi government on top of insurgents. Oh joy!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 5:35pm
Maliki obviously knows that Al Qaeda in Iraq was created by US presence there, and the sooner the US leaves the sooner the "threat" from Al Qaeda disappears!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 5:41pm
It's their country!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/07/2008 @ 10:42pm
Posted by 2HAPPY
you sound like cheney talking about chalabi.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2008 @ 12:12am
"So, you think Maliki is being smart to tie his luck to a Magic Presidency.......in whom he can trust to come roaring back with 40,000 US troops if Iraq starts falling apart around summer 2009? or at least trust that Magic's oratory skills will talk down any insurgencies or sectarian warfare?"
If we leave Iraqi on Iraq's terms, we are under no obligation to redeploy if the civil war breaks out. And if it does, is it our fault that we listened to them when they asked us to leave, or for deposing Saddam and allowing the factions to have at each other?
Posted by Egalitare at 07/08/2008 @ 04:57am
Who do these people think they are?
We in the US don't want outsiders interfering in our foreign affairs.
It's our business.
Don't they understand?
Ingrates.
We'll leave Iraq when we're good & ready.
About the time the oil starts to run out.
Posted by sloper at 07/08/2008 @ 10:46am
Once Bush had declared Iraq a sovereign nation his goose was cooked; this is what sovereign nations do - they decide for themselves what is best for them. Bush cannot insist that US forces stay without looking (even more)utterly foolish, all claims of internal security aside. 'Can't have it both ways, bucko!
As much as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Total would love to stick around in Basra and suck on their no-bid contracts, without US protection it's going to be nigh on impossible.
When Cheney drew up his Energy Task Force wet dream and Rummy was saying the war would be over in weeks I don't think they foresaw this little wrinkle. Maliki isn't Chalabi Dick!
Obama wins by a landslide.
Posted by sama3033 at 07/08/2008 @ 11:20am
This will give war supporters the ability to pretend that they won something and allowing them to pretend that they won something is fine with me because then we can,hopefully and finally,go after those that attacked us..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 11:26am
OK MBB. Bush got his victory.
Time to go, right?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 12:53pm
MBB-You must remember that it was you guys who invited those terrorists to come into Iraq to kill Iraqis while you claim that you aren't selfish for doing that.You told them to come to Iraq and "Bring it on" so you could "fight them there instead of here".Of course,none of you could say how they are going to get here,but that would require thought.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 12:53pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/08/2008 @ 12:43pm'
Wow your second post is biased to the extreme. Having a bunch of yellow cake and having WMD's is very different. I posses the materials to make meth-amphetamines in my house. I could also probably make a variety of bombs out of multiple common household materials. Does that mean I have the ability? As in the equipment, knowledge, staff? Uhhh NO.
So saying that he has yellow cake material and saying that he has WMD's is like saying he has apples therefore he has oranges. Having yellow cake does not mean you have a bomb because you must also have the means by which to enrich it. If it was still yellow cake it means it was not enriched which is the hardest step in making a nuclear weapon.
Also. The reason the news about the Yellow cake was reported is because it is from 2003. THAT is when the material was actually found. Today it was just moved which is why no one bothered to report it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 2:03pm
Actually better analogy for the yellow cake therefore he has WMD's line of thinking:
He has apple seeds in his hand therefore he has apples.
You are skipping the huge and difficult step between making apple seeds into apples.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 2:05pm
Does that mean we don't get to steal (er, share) their oil? Does that mean that the deaths of thousands of Americans, the maiming of tens of thousands and the internal exile of over a million Iraqis in our wake is going to be met with us getting a bum's rush?
Awww, shucks.
Posted by midnight04 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:11pm
News: "All your base are belong to us!"
Posted by rooneypg at 07/09/2008 @ 11:14am