The Scum at the Top
Commentary on the Rats in Washington
Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts
By Terence Hunt
AP News/Excite
© July 18, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and Iraq's prime
minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon"
for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a
dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad
unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or
timetable.
The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of
offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically
charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss
with the Democratic-led Congress at home. It also could
complicate the presidential campaign arguments of
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who
have staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular
war.
What's changed? The sharp reduction in violence in Iraq -
to the lowest level in four years - has made the country's
leaders increasingly confident and more assertive about its
sovereignty, giving rise to demands for a specific plan for
American forces to leave.
Iraq has leverage because the White House is struggling
to salvage negotiations for a long-term agreement covering
U.S. military operations there. The White House said its
goal is to conclude that deal by the end of this month.
Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked
about the stalled negotiations during a secure video
conference on Thursday, agreeing "on a common way forward
to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible," a
White House statement said.
The two leaders agreed that improvements in security
should allow for the negotiations "to include a general
time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the
resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and
provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces
from Iraq," the White House said.
Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by
Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.
Friday's White House statement was intentionally vague
and did not specify what kind of timelines were envisioned.
That allows Iraqi officials, who are facing elections in
the fall, to argue they are not beholden to Washington or
willing to tolerate a permanent military presence in Iraq.
For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework for
keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate
expires on Dec. 31.
"The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of
responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe,
spokesman for Bush's National Security Council. "The
focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on
what troop levels will be."
As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief,
McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while
Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months.
By talking about a "time horizon," Bush appeared at odds
with McCain and could make his own GOP administration a
tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs.
McCain issued a statement saying, "Progress between the
United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American
troop presence is further evidence that the surge has
succeeded. ... If we had followed Sen. Obama's policy,
Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties
would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized."
However, Ben Rose, a senior adviser to Obama, said, "It's
another indication that the administration is moving toward ...
Sen. Obama's position on negotiating the removal of our forces
as part of our ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bush wasn't going far enough.
"After rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic
majority in Congress to adopt redeployment timetables, the
president now proposes a vague general time horizon that
falls far short of a commitment to ending our involvement
in Iraq," she said.
Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has
led House hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said
the "time horizon" cited by the White House was "very vague
and nebulous." He also said the agreement taking shape seemed
"far less grandiose than what was initially articulated."
Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw
five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security
nationwide - though that condition could take years to meet.
Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said
this month that Baghdad would not accept any security deal
unless it contained specific dates for U.S. troop withdrawals.
So far, the United States has handed control of 10 of 18
provinces to Iraqi officials. "Obviously, if Iraqis are
assuming more missions, then you need less American troops,"
Johndroe said.
The White House sought to make a distinction between talking
with Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to
force cutbacks.
"I think it's important to remember that the discussions
about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in
Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without
consideration of conditions on the ground," said White House
deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who was traveling with
Bush in Tucson, Ariz.
"All of the discussions that we have always had have been
based on conditions on the ground and making progress in
the country, and we are doing just that," Stanzel said.
"We are making progress on the security situation. The
number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months."
A major troop buildup ordered by Bush in January 2007 has
ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd
Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades
sent in last year, left the country. There are still 150,000
U.S. troops in Iraq - as many as 15,000 more than before
the buildup began.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
said on Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further
troop reductions this fall because security has improved.
The Scum at the Top - Home
E-mail: dwagner2@isd.net
©2008 DJW
Last Modified:
September 22, 2008