So it appears Maliki (who happens to be the leader of Iraq, not Bush) wants a timetable for troop withdrawal. Call me crazy but I don't think the guy would want that unless he was somewhat certain that his nation can (at least mostly) take care of itself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01085.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01085.html
Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.
But the government's spokesman said any timetable would depend on security conditions on the ground.
The differing stances underscore the intense debate in Baghdad over a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.
National security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie appeared to go one step further on Tuesday.
"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," he said.
Sounds pretty clear cut. "Thanks, we'll take it from here." Why shouldn't we listen? It's not as if we'd just be leaving on our own accord; it's obvious that they want us out. This is the test. Will our leader (and/or our presidential candidates) listen to the government of Iraq? Or is pulling out not convenient with contracting interests?Nasar al-Rubaie, a senior Sadrist lawmaker, welcomed Maliki's suggestion of a timetable, saying that Iraq's armed forces could take over security duties within a year. "This is an important step in the right path," Rubaie said.
