THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Interesting news this morning, predictable, Obama says he wants to stick to his timetable to withdraw all troops from Iraq, but is hedging his bets by saying now he will consult with his commanders before committing to specific dates. Hmmm, that is what Bush has been doing since Day 1. I thought Obama thought that was all wrong? Or was I hearing things during the campaign?

Democrat Barack Obama said today that he continues to be committed to withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, after his earlier comments raised questions about whether he was softening his position.

“Here is what I can tell you,” Obama said in a second news conference on Iraq. “I will bring our troops out one to two brigades a month. That’s what I intend to do as president of the United States.”

Earlier, Obama had emphasized that he might revise his proposed timetable for pulling U.S. combat troops from Iraq, saying he needed to consult with U.S. commanders and do a “thorough assessment of the situation.”

The comments at the first news conference here seemed to be a shift in focus by Obama, a staunch opponent of the Iraq war. At both news conferences, Obama maintained that he had not changed his position.

In the past, Obama has stressed his plan to begin a withdrawal immediately and complete it within 16 months, although he also has carefully hedged, leaving the option of taking more time " and leaving more troops " if events require.

At his first news conference, Obama did not explicitly say he would stick to the 16-month timetable, which appeared to depart from a statement on his website pledging that he will “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

At both news conferences, Obama was asked whether he now advocates a slower timetable, but he insisted that his position hasn’t changed.

“I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground,” Obama said at the first news conference. “I’ve always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed.”

He added that his timeline was always contingent on keeping the troops safe.

“I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely from a logistical perspective,” he said. “And my guiding approach continues to be that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

... "we" exacerbated the recruitment of al Qaeda in Iraq ... That holds true for the growth of al Qaeda throughout the world, and their comcommitant violence enacted in their name.

How many al-Qaeda would there now be in Iraq and in the rest of the world, as of November 2008, had the USA not invaded Iraq?

Al-Qaeda... In Sanaa and Beyond

21/09/2008
By Tariq Alhomayed

Al-Qaeda's attempt to storm the U.S. embassy in Sanaa is an indication that the terrorist organization is regrouping and reestablishing its power in Yemen, where it is utilizing various factors and circumstances in order to create a safe haven for itself there.

With increased military operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the endeavors of the Iraqi Awakening Councils against it, the Al-Qaeda organization has started fleeing to Yemen in order to escape and regroup there. Moreover, A Yemeni source told Newsweek magazine that the authorities are aware of this fact and of the threat members of the organization returning from Iraq pose, who are now better trained and more dangerous.

How many al-Qaeda would there now be in Iraq and in the rest of the world, as of November 2008, had the USA not invaded Iraq?

When the defense secretary was asked whether he considers himself "at odds" with Obama's position on a timetable for withdrawal, Gates said that while Obama continues to make clear the importance of a timetable, he believes Obama will withdraw American troops responsibly.

"I think that I would subscribe to what the president-elect said yesterday in Chicago," Gates said. "He repeated his desire to try and get our combat forces out within 16 months, but he also said that he wanted to have a responsible drawdown. And he also said that he was prepared to listen to his commanders."

When pushed on the issue, Gates pointed out that the SOFA has significantly changed the situation in Iraq and therefore his outlook on the timetable.

"We are going to be out of all populated areas of Iraq by the end of June 2009," said the secretary. "I'm less concerned about that timetable. First of all, we have a definite timetable now in the SOFA. It's a longer one, but it's a definite timetable. So that bridge has been crossed. And so the question is how do we do this in a responsible way. And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved with so much sacrifice on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis at this point. And so I think that the president-elect framed it just right yesterday.

oe, for Obama to advocate a 16 month timetable before consulting with commanders, then hedging it, shows a lack of honesty. How can he propose any timetable if he doesn't have all the information, that was my point, and I think he should have known that from Day 1. Proposing any timetable was foolish without all the information that he needed. He proposed a timetable strictly for political purposes, nothing more. What we are ending up with is pretty much what Bush proposed originally, and what Bush is doing now, because it was Bush that made the right decisions based upon all the best military advice and information. All Obama was doing was based upon not much information, strictly for political purposes, and he knew it. He now is doing the logical thing, pretty much what Bush was doing, that is the ironic point in this whole issue.

Thats like an a self proclaimed expert with no expertise at all telling another person following the experts that they are doing it all wrong, and proposing something totally different, then hedging his bets by saying when he is in charge he will consult the experts, which will tell him to do it exactly like the other guy already following the best advice is already doing. I don't call that change. I call it arrogance and ignorance.

oe, it doesn't take anyone with great brilliance to see that a timetable at previous points in the war was very unwise, which Bush pointed out, but now that success is far more likely in Iraq now, and the Iraqis appear to be more prepared to govern and protect themselves, a timetable does seem more logical. Of course a timetable eventually becomes necessary to eventually withdraw. But a timetable now in no way proves that a timetable 3 years ago or 2 years ago, or even a year ago, was advisable.

A fixed timetable for withdrawal, in my judgment, means defeat.

You guys will continue to defend Obama because he is your man,

That is not what was said at the time. Bush never said "sure, once things are better, we'll have a timetable". Let's see what he actually said:

George W Bush wrote:

A fixed timetable for withdrawal, in my judgment, means defeat.