Comments on: We’re At The War’s End

By: Kilo

Kilo — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:08:06 +0000

I will immediately begin pulling combat brigades out and immediately enter into negotiations on the “specific date” that Mr. Dabbagh says can be flexible and responsive to conditions on the ground. That’s wise….

No, that’s dumb. All it does is pose the question of why you’d be pulling out troops immediately.

The Bush admin didn’t institute stop-loss and extended tours because they’re evil. They did it because they needed more troops in Iraq and couldn’t come up with them otherwise. The surge was implemented via extended tours for troops already committed, not new troops.

Here Iraq has proposed a withdrawal (let’s take it as that) in 3-4 years time. Surely you know it’d be more politically useful to them to propose turfing the US out earlier. But they’re not for some reason. Wanna bet that’s a significant one and one that you can guess ?

By: kiweagle

kiweagle — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:52:39 +0000

Unfortunately, you can pretty much guarantee that Obama’s campaign advisers will tell him to adopt McCain’s plan on permanent bases in order to better snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. FISA, late-term abortion, and other issues are painful warning signs of his move to the center.

These same consultants killed Gore’s winning run and recount, while also telling Kerry to ignore those pesky swift-boaters instead of going on the offensive.

No-one would be happier if I were wrong, and I actively pray that I am…

By: jimportlandor

jimportlandor — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:56:48 +0000

Nothing being said to the media matters much on this SOFA, as there are way to many layers of this onion to penetrate. I would likely trust a straightforward statement from Sistani, but probably not much else.

The only good SOFA is one that doesn’t get signed in 2008, even as a memorandum. Bush/Cheney cannot, cannot be trusted, and we all know this. Why would the Iraqis even want to sign something with Bush knowing the probable odds that Obama will take another road - unless Maliki prefers BushCo to ObamaCo, which seems counterintuitive giving Sistani’s fairly consistent stance since this started. Without Sistani (and probably without the assent of Sadr), Maliki cannot govern.

But the current verbal posturing sure does make McCain’s position worse, if that is possible. If the Iraqis insist on some form of timetable and full Iraq sovereignty, McCain would be reduced to arguing for the “Emperor Must Prevail” position: we won’t be kicked out of Iraq because we understand the danger to the US and the Iraqis don’t. That would fly real well, right?

By: cobernicus

cobernicus — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:21:22 +0000

It’s even better than that! McCain said flatly in 2004 that we should leave Iraq if asked by an elected government. So if he agrees with Obama, he will be back where he was then. That’s not a flip-flop, that’s an inward 3-1/2 with 2 twists.