Juan Cole, for whom I have all the respect in the world, doesn’t really think that Maliki’s comments yesterday were a legitimate story. I replied over at the Windy. The gist:
…this was (a) the first time Maliki publicly acknowledged any post-2011 U.S. troop presence and (b) he didn’t specify the size of that presence, and because (c) training/advisory missions can also be nebulous and open-ended, it struck me that I should report that story, and report it in the way that I did. I did not write and I (hopefully) didn’t imply that Maliki was opening the door to an endless occupation, because that certainly wasn’t what he said, but there’s sufficient and sufficiently-meaningful middle ground between All Troops Out and All Troops In that makes his comments worth reporting.



1 Comment
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Hmm. I read Cole’s point more as a critique of earlier press coverage. I understood him to say that the reason THIS was a non-story is that, one way or another, American military involvement with Iraq is not going to end any time soon, and that should be an obvious foregone conclusion. As he says, even if ALL American military personnel were withdrawn per the current schedule, we would still have a training mission and air support in nearby countries, which would be a much more dishonest fig leaf than an agreement to a limited, specified presence in country.
Right or wrong, there’s just too much concern about who and what would fill it to leave that vacuum in Iraq…
mikey