Dear America, Get Out. Sincerely, Iraq

by Scott Shields, Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:27:24 AM EST

Perhaps it wasn't quite that simple, but as Chris mentioned yesterday, that's the message Iraqi leaders are sending the American government. AmericaBlog is all over it, writing that the Iraqis have essentially "endorsed Congressman Murtha's proposal for a timed withdrawal." I disagree with John's characterization of Iraq's call for a timetable as "extremely bizarre," but he's exactly right that this leaves the GOP in the lurch. Here are the details from the AP.

Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The participants in Cairo agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The conference was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers, as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Though there's no exact timetable given, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr has indicated that Iraq's military will be at full readiness by the end of 2006. There was no immediate word from the Bush administration as to whether or not Jabr was emboldening the terrorists.

The call for timed withdrawal also included an interesting, if somewhat frightening attempt to split the definitions of terrorism and insurgency as they relate to Iraq.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

There's no mention of American troops in there at all, which suggests that the Iraqi government considers the insurgency to have some legitimacy. I'm no fan of this war, but that does strike me as intensely screwed up. It will be interesting to see how the Iraqi government responds to certain acts of violence from now on. For example, if a car bomb targets American forces or installations, but happens to kill a number of innocent Iraqis in the process, is that somehow okay? Either way, it makes sustaining the occupation even more difficult than it already is.

It has been well documented that the Bush administration has said repeatedly that our forces would pull out of Iraq if their government asked. Some feel that Bush will ignore the Iraqis on this, giving the lie to the claim that this war was about democracy. But I imagine that some in the administration must view this call as the ultimate get out of jail free card. They'll claim they're not cutting and running, but staying true to their word. Will this sound ridiculous coming from people who have been talking about retreat, surrender, and cowardice? Of course it will. But since when has this administration ever worried about sounding ridiculous?

Our job is to hammer home the message that it's time for the Republicans to sign on to Democratic proposals from Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Carl Levin, and Rep. John Murtha. While the Republicans were willing to accept the military being bogged down in Iraq for decades to come if that's what Bush wanted, that has never been acceptable to the Democrats.

Tags: World (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Sort by

permalink

The Iraqi's leaders on terror

Mum on terror directed aginst US personnel in this agreement. That is a chilling raproachment of all parties with the rump Baathists and al Quada agitators directing much of the slaughter. Bush is bringing one country together it seems..

by sporadicallyDilligentRuss 2005-11-22 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Iraqi's leaders on terror

Russ,

not even the wildly misleading AP story claimed that "all parties" came to rapprochement. The rump Baathists and Al Qaeda terrorists did not have a seat at the conference table, in any case.

The Iraq government doesn't condone attacks on the US military in any way, shape or form. The Sunni creeps who allegedly claimed they had this right would be arrested if they acted out on their bluster.

You're right about one thing. Bush is bringing this country together, which is why its government doesn't sponsor terrorism.

by Reid Rininger 2005-11-23 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Republicans Need to Remember

The role of instinct in war. We were attacked. Naturally, we wanted revenge. Revenge is just another instinct, like hunger. When you are hungry, you want to eat. But nobody just keeps wating. They get full. America has had its fill of war and is read to move on. I hope the Arab Republicans (ie Al Qaeda) understand this too. This time we came to build schools for you. Next time, we will be all business.

by Paul Goodman 2005-11-22 09:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

An Historic Mess

To be fair, the Guardian wrote, "In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution." They know there is little security in Iraq and they can be killed just as easily as Saddam's lawyers.

I think we really need to think through where Iraq goes from here. Just leaving is not an answer, it's a way to get the horrow of this out of our faces - for a while. You can't start a war and expect that it ends if you decide you're tired of it - that's not how wars end. Wars end with terms and retributions. But this war can't even end that way.

What am I saying we should do? Actually you and I can't do anything. We need to understand just how big a mess Bush has created. Simple calls for "withdrawal" do not recognize how serious this is for the country and the world. We have to understand that we - WE - wrongly invaded a country, killed hundreds of thousands, and destabilized the region. "Withdrawal" doesn't bring those people back and certainly doesn't REstabilize the region.

I think the right answer is for the UN to step in, for us to leave, and then the UN brings in sufficient peacekeepers to keep the lid on while Iraq builds institutions of justice that mitigate the tensions currently pushing them toward civil war. Meanwhile we need to pay to rebuild the country, AND pay for those forces the UN brings in. What's the fat chance of that? And if you think we're in debt now...

What I think WILL happen is Bush pulls out, there will or won't be a horrendous civil war. For sure the Shiites take over and merge with Iran, making Iran the superpower of the Middle East with the resources of Iran AND Iraq's oil fields. Will that Iran be a terrorist state? Who knows.

After Bush withdraws will the Republican Party launch an all-out effort to paint the Democrats as the people who betrayed America? You bet. Will it be like Germany after WW1? We need to think that through.

by davej 2005-11-22 09:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Operation CYA

via Juan Cole, this is coming from us:

Sources at the conference told al-Hayat that they envisaged the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the cities within 6 months (i.e. mid-May?). They said that the withdrawal would be completed over a period of two years (i.e. November 2007). This timetable, al-Hayat says, appears actually to have been put forward by the Americans themselves. If that is true, we finally know exactly what George W. Bush means by "staying the course." It is a course that takes us to withdrawal.

by tatere 2005-11-22 11:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Operation CYA

...the Repubs want to stay until we accomplish our goal.

So... what's the goal? Removing Saddam? Ridding the country of WMD? Establishing a government? Then why aren't we out yet?

Bush is double-dealing here, accusing anyone who calls for any sort of withdrawal of wanting to surrender, meanwhile making his own plans for withdrawal on the sly. You guys are willing to accept any sort of crap, as long as it comes out of your Dear Leader's mouth.

And we don't want arbitrary deadlines. You should actually read some of the things that have been written at this very site about the Democratic proposals for withdrawal based on specific benchmarks and the readiness estimates of the Iraqis.

You can repeat your talking points over and over again, but that won't make them facts.

by Scott Shields 2005-11-22 12:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Operation CYA

Please explain. What the Hell is the goal?

by antiHyde 2005-11-22 12:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Operation CYA

Never were any damn WMD's and you know it.
Why did 2000 Americans die to liberate Iraq?
Will never happen, so we stay forever or 50 years like Cheney says?

by antiHyde 2005-11-23 07:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Operation CYA

500 tons of uranium found, 1.8 of it enriched. Stockpiles of poison gas unaccounted for. Hundreds of tons of conventional explosives seized. Iraq was chock full of WMD and YOU know it.
To deny the jihadis a safe haven and training base. This is the same reason why Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second and Syria/Lebanon and Iran are next on the list. The terrorists will keep coming unless the sick societies that produce them are transformed into productive ones. Bush has spelled this out enough times for even the dullest minds to comprehend.
It's already happening. The progress is there for everybody to see, and in your case, foolishly deny. We stay until the job is done, as Cheney says. Iraq will remain a staging ground for regime changes in neighboring islamo-fascist states even after Iraqis are capable of maintaining their own security. All the America-last, self destructive braying in the world wont change that.

In the future don't insult the rest of us by insinuating that you care about US soldiers. Their deaths mean nothing to you other than a ghoulish rallying cry to abandon the Iraqis.

by Reid Rininger 2005-11-23 05:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Operation CYA

You couldn't have chosen a more unreliable source than Juan Cole. Saddam Hussein is less biased.

by Reid Rininger 2005-11-23 04:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why do you see things backwards?

What a dumb, weird game of gotcha you're trying to play here. First of all, don't quote things from the AP report and then say that I said them. I know you Republicans hate "facts" because they support our arguments, but we honestly can't take credit for making them up.

And secondly, "are you in favor of considering the blowing up civilians waiting to sign up for police or military service to be a 'legitimate' form of insurgent activity?" Oh, you really got me there, chief. I love that your warped, wingnut logic tells you that if I'm uncomfortable with the Iraqi government splitting the definitions of terror and insurgency, it's because I think all violence in Iraq is totally justified. You guys really do believe we're playing for the other team, don't you? Quite to the contrary, I don't like any of the violence in Iraq. The idea that the Iraqi government now says it's legitimate to kill Americans is absolutely disgusting to me. And this is your problem with what I wrote? Ladies and gentlemen, meet the 'support the troops' Republicans.

And I'm backwards because I support the Iraqi calls for a timetable, which the GOP strongly rejects, but you now say are "a good sign"? Which is it? Keep talking in circles. One of these days, your worldview might even make sense.

by Scott Shields 2005-11-22 12:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why do you see things backwards?

Scott Shields,

the Iraqi government has not stated that "it's legitimate to kill Americans," nor will it. That unsubstantiated quote is attributed to Sunni "leaders" that attended a "reconciliation conference" in Cairo under the auspices of the Arab League. Just because the President of Iraq and some of its lawmakers attended the conference doesn't mean it was legitimate in any way. It was a conference in another country, not an Iraqi session of congress. Not a single policy decision was made. That would be impossible because a conference in Cairo is not where the laws governing Iraq are set.

It's ridiculous to insinuate that that's the case, which is obviously what the typically tendentious AP story meant to do.

Talk about "dumb" and "weird." You cant even comprehend what you read and you see fit to excoriate another commentator. Your ad hominem insults and projection are standard leftist traits. So is your disassociation from reality.

Leftists employ facts about as often as muslims employ deodorant.

by Reid Rininger 2005-11-23 05:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

ha!

col. murtha - 1
yeehaw kid - 0

by Cedwyn 2005-11-22 11:48PM | 0 recs