Whether the withdrawal has a date attached to it or not really begs the question. The problem with the various withdrawal proposals floated by Democrats in Congress was not that they had dates, per se, but that the dates attached to them were arbitrary, not driven or even affected by conditions in Iraq.
If the Sunni element of the insurgency makes a credible offer to lay down arms and join the political process in exchange for a timetable for a US withdrawal, that, by definition, is a conditions-based timetable.
I think that if the Sunni insurgents are willing to meet some tests to demonstrate that they intend to honor their side of the bargain the withdrawal timetable should be accepted. |
| |
Written By:
Aldo
URL:
http://
|
The problem with the various withdrawal proposals floated by Democrats in Congress was not that they had dates, per se, but that the dates attached to them were arbitrary, not driven or even affected by conditions in Iraq.
ALthough I didn’t pay that much attention to the proposals, I believe the 2nd one said that dates depended on conditions in Iraq and could be modified.
The hopeful scenario here is that at least some of the Sunnis disarm, some of the Shia militas do likewise and the escalating cycle of violence de-escalates over the next 2-3 years.
At some point Maliki also needs to move against the criminal gangs and against corruption. For most IRaqis outside the central provinces, these are probably far more of a problem.
|
| |
Written By:
Mark m
URL:
http://
|
I think Mark m has a good point, corruption and internal instablity are key concerns.
I will still point out that at the end of the day, some legal/verbal leger de main is going to occur and the "Coalition Forces" WILL go home. They will be replaced by US forces stationed in Iraq under an security agreement/treaty. Now US forces will spend decades in Kasernes/Casbahs in Iraq and my friends will talk of Ramadi, the ranges west of Yousafi, rather than Bamberg and Grafenwoeher (sp.).
I laugh a little, but I don’t object either. But if anyone thinks the US is COMING HOME from Iraq, I would point you to kasernes throughout the BRD, Camp Red Cloud, Camp Casey in the ROK, and to numerous camps in Japan and Okinawa. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Remember, after the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln’s main and virtually only condition for the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia (and later the other remaining armies of the Confederacy) was that they lay down their arms, go home and promise to be loyal to the United States of America. Lincoln was never in favor of punishment of the Confederacy or war crimes trials for its leaders. He knew, the only way to national reconciliation was to let everyone be countrymen again.
The radical reconstruction that followed Lincoln’s death was, in many ways, the wrong way to go, to the extent that it sought top punish the former members of the Confederacy. It would have been much more successful if it had simply sought to impose the new order concerning treatment of the former slaves, rather than also imposing northern "overlords" to run the local governments. In fact, many have argued that radical reconstruction prolonged the post-war poverty and isolation of the former Confederacy.
The new Iraqi leadership well understands that this is necessary if you are going to get anywhere with regard to national reconciliation. This is even more true in a country with such deep ethnic division to deal with after the war. We cannot condemn them for wanting to grant amnesty and move past the war, when we did the same thing ourselves 150 years ago. |
| |
Written By:
GLELAWNJ
URL:
http://
|
I don’t know anything about Middle Eastern culture to be an authority, I hope this isn’t a big cultural misunderstand.
I mean in some cultures setting dates is not held as firm a commitment to meet that date as it is in North American Culture. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|