November 22, 2005
Iraq Withdrawal Timetable Set
This is a watershed moment: The timetable for withdrawal of coalition forces has now been set by the only entity capable of doing so: the Iraqi government.
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time -- reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first. [emphasis mine](...)
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he [Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr] told the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera.
Whether or not this move was prompted by or even orchestrated by the Bush administration, it is a necessary step for progress in the region. Iraqis are taking responsibility for themselves.
War on Terror Posted by JohnGalt at November 22, 2005 11:04 AM
I wonder if Congressman Murtha had advanced warning of this. If he knew it was coming, he could look like a genius.
Posted by: AlexC at November 22, 2005 11:35 AMI thought about that: Murtha called for withdrawal starting now and completing in 6 months. The timetable suggested by Iraq has withdrawal starting in a little over a year, and no timetable for completion. (My preference would be, right after our complete withdrawal from Germany, Japan and Korea.)
There's been a growing sense that withdrawal would happen before long. For Murtha to suggest immediate withdrawal was a calculation that appears to have backfired. See today's Brendan Miniter column on Opinion Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110007582
Posted by: johngalt at November 22, 2005 11:44 AMThank you, now was that so hard? Now we have a definable condition, when the Iraqi government believes their own troops are ready to provide the power to enforce their rule, and a goal of a target date to accomplish this. It is after all partly their call as a new sovereign nation. There are 3 main ingredients their army must have, training, equipment, and loyalty. We can help with the first two, but the third rests on their shoulders. It really doesn't take genius to realize that the Iraqi leaders and our own military commanders knew what was required and approximately when it could be delivered, stating it publicly makes it a goal that both our citizens and theirs can use to measure success.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 22, 2005 12:14 PMWell, yes, Silence, it was hard. We ejected a brutal dictator, installed a provisional government, elected a temporary parliament, drafted and ratified a Constitution...Only now can we point to a legitimate Iraqi government to provide this timetable.
It was not that "Bush Had No Plan!" It just had to reach this level of stability on its own schedule.
Sorry to be so argumentative when we all agree around here, but I believe the hard work this administration did got us here. Not the UN, Cindy Sheehan or Rep John Murtha.
Posted by: jk at November 22, 2005 4:45 PMSorry JK, didn't mean it wasn't hard in that respect. What I have been haranguing on about is setting the final big milestone, that of Iraqi self sufficiency, or to be blunt, the capability to make their government real in the sense that it has actual power. Did no one else notice that the recent upheaval about Iraq policy started after the constitution was signed? This feeling of interminable troop deployment was a function of lacking the stated goal and schedule for the final milestone. Putting it in place was the part that was not so hard, the experts new what the conditions were and when they could realistically be achieved but there was an insinuation that stating our goal in any way would disrupt the process and embolden the enemy. I think the opposite was true, without the stated objective there was a huge unknown about the duration of troop deployment, that they could be brought home on short notice if public opinion turned very sour or that they could be stationed indefinitely battling a decades long terror war. This goal and schedule is not an ultimatum, if we miss it we keep working, it is not a hard date after which we throw them to the wolves as johngalt would say. This has been my frustration, that not only would a goal and a date be valuable to the effort and keeping the public engaged, but that this is one of those cases where there just seems to be a standard conservative response along the lines that Chris Muir has satirized. No matter how many times or ways I try to make my point, the response seems to be that setting a date is broadcasting all our movements to the enemy and declaring a date beyond which the Iraqis are on their own and thus emboldening the insurgency that it only has to hang on for a set period of time.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 23, 2005 12:19 PMI knew what you meant, I was just being an ass****!
My objection to your goal requires the perspective on an Iraqi who is contemplating joining the police, army or political class. If it appears to him/her that the US might pull out before the job is done, he/she will be less likely to participate.
I would say that this is where your parallel of a project plan in a corporation falls short. Many players on both sides are trying to assess the US's will and dedication. I object to your admittedly reasonable requests for goals because they show us to be more interested in withdrawal than victory.
Posted by: jk at November 23, 2005 2:36 PM | What do you think? [6]