On Monday, Nouri al Maliki told Arab ambassadors in Abu Dhabi that he was seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of the security agreement with the U.S.
"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."
The Busheviks insisted there must have been a translation error.
On Tuesday, Maliki's national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaien went further and declared the timetable non-negotiable, according to Agence France Presse.
"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops."
The AP version is slightly different but essentially identical:
"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.
Iraq apparently has demanded a specific withdrawal plan:
Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.
The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.
That means our troops would be restricted to our bases and could no longer go into battle, at least in Iraqi cities.
After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.
So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.
In Maliki's mind, he's halfway there. Of course if McBush steals the White House, he'll just hold on to the 18th province for 100 1,000 1,000,000 years.
Bush's spokesman Scott Stanzel is using the classic Bushevik strategery of trying to "bamboozle" Iraqis by distinguishing "hard dates" from "time-frames."
"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal," he said. "When you make an agreement," he added, however, "that doesn't mean that there won't be some understanding of time-frames."
As we learned during the Social Security battle, Bush resorts to bamboozlement when he can't sell his unwanted rightwing agenda on its alleged "merits."
Clearly the Iraqis have made up their minds that they don't want Bush's permanent occupation, and have no intention of being bamboozled into giving Bush an inch so he can take a mile. (Sadly, Congressional Democrats have never learned that simple lesson.) They also know Bush is leaving office soon and Obama, who is ahead in the polls, agrees with them on a withdrawal timeline.
Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.
Maliki is holding all the cards. Either Bush agrees to Maliki's terms, or Maliki will wait for Obama to agree to them. The end of the occupation is coming into sight...
Update 1: dday isn't impressed by Iraq's proposed timetable:
The practical effect of the agreement described above is negligible. We've only handed over security responsibility in 9 of the 18 provinces to date. There's enough flexibility in this statement to hold off withdrawing all combat troops for potentially up to a decade. And 10 years is a long time and lots of things can change. This is an election-year "peace is at hand" statement that Maliki can wave around to the Iraqi public.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush jumped at it, actually. It's certainly a good deal for him - he gets to pretend to leave while locking in for a long-term arrangement. He helps Maliki consolidate power and break the back of the Sadrist movement. It perpetuates the myth that we aren't seeking permanent bases - there's nothing in the withdrawal document about after-action forces - and that Iraq has some form of soveriegnty.
So let's not kid ourselves - even with such an agreement in place it will be very important who is in the White House implementing the policy, which could result in a gradual withdrawal or no discernible change for decades. If Sen. Obama wanted to clear up confusion about his Iraq policy that the brain-dead media seeks to muddy, he could come out strongly endorsing this concept of a phased withdrawal and the right of the Iraqis to self-govern. And he could specifically explain that this document wouldn't necessarily do that, and that it would be up to the policymakers to determine the next course.
Sounds right to me.
