Timetables And Stopped Clocks

The NY Times reports that US and Iraqi negotiators have agreed on a conditions-based timetable for the withdrawal of US troops fro Iraq:

BAGHDAD — The United States has agreed to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011 if conditions in Iraq remain relatively stable, according to Iraqi and American officials involved in negotiating a security accord governing American forces there.

The WaPo website runs a Reuters report emphasizing that there are no firm dates in the agreement:

Iraq says no firm dates in draft U.S. troops deal

By David Alexander and Wisam Mohammed
Reuters
Thursday, August 21, 2008;  5:46 PM

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A draft agreement between the United States and Iraq contains no fixed dates for U.S. forces to withdraw, but Iraq would like combat troops out by the end of 2011, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Thursday.

"The draft does not contain definite dates," Dabbagh said.

He said Iraqi negotiators were proposing U.S. troops end patrols of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year, U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011 and all U.S. troops leave three years later.

But he made clear those deadlines were not yet fixed, and represented the government's negotiating position, not an explicitly agreed text: "This is the Iraqi government's view and what the government wants."

Conditions-based, no firm dates - Dan Froomkin of the WaPo takes a victory lap, pretending that this is what Dems have been talking about all along:

In agreeing to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June, and from the rest of the country by 2011, President Bush has apparently consented to precisely the kind of timetable that, when Democrats called for one, he dismissed as "setting a date for failure." Bush can call it an "aspirational goal" until he turns blue, but a timetable is exactly what it is, thank you very much.

You're welcome.  Mr. Froomkin is not a candidate for President, but let's hear from another fantasist:

"I am glad that the Administration has finally shifted to accepting a timetable for the removal of our combat troops from Iraq. Success in Iraq depends on an Iraqi government that is reconciling its differences and taking responsibility for its future, and a timetable is the best way to press the Iraqis to do just that. I welcome the growing convergence around this pragmatic and responsible position.

Given the greatly improved security situation in Iraq it may be perfectly responsible to talk of withdrawing US troops now.  But back when Obama gave his surrender speech in January 2007 he deemed the situation a civil war.  His intention was to withdraw US troops in order to force Iraqis to engage in political reconciliation and he actually included a backwards conditions-based criteria - if the Iraqi situation improved, US troops would linger:

Mr. President, today in Iraq, we sadly find ourselves at the very point I feared most when I opposed giving the President the open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002 - an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences in the midst of a country torn by civil war.

The American people have waited and the American people have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come, and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief the tragic loss of thousands of brave young American soldiers.
            
The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here.

That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.

...The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

The idea that, as of January 2007, a troop withdrawal based on a fixed timetable to be suspended only if conditions improved does not appear, in hindsight, to have been the wisest course, although Obama defended it as untested during his well-covered trip to Iraq recently. 

Enough with the links to Froomkin and Obama.  Folks looking for logic should go to Commentary.
 

BY WAY OF CONTRAST:  Here was the Administration objection to a timetable in a message sent to Congress in July 2007 (my emphasis):

The Administration strongly opposes any provision that sets an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would not bring peace to the region or make our people safer here at home. Withdrawal could embolden our enemies and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure and could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around the world. It is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region.

As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Comments

[Ann]

Oh and Thanks Hit,

You are my sweetheart, always. I hope you win tomorrow!! Nite.

[JM Hanes]

Since events on the ground never figured in the Democrats' position in the first place, it's no surprise to hear them cast this a 1:1 proposition. They've always refused distinguish between "The boys are coming home; we've won" from "We've won; the boys are coming home" and they're certainly not about to start now, more's the pity.

[Ann]

Ok, I didn't mean to post that on a new thread, but I still meant it. Sorry!! Go Obama Biden.

[Ann]

JMH,

The sad thing is they never ever wanted to say "We Won".

[Chris]

JMH,
Correct for any rational thinking person. However, if your definition of "we" is something other than the USA, well, you knew that already.

There is no major policy debate in this country over the last 25 years where the dem's haven't tried to have it both ways. Iraq is no exception. They're always right, just ask them. Never waivering, either.

Cold War-they stood firm. Missile defense-a hoax, until it was proven to work. Then, deafening silence for the most part. Communist expansion-they stood with Reagan. Iraq-always wanted to get rid of Saddam, at least until Bush decided to actually do it. Voted for it but were tricked by the dunce and his cooked-up intel. Afghanistan-the good war.

Sure you've seen that video from after Gulf War I where Gore lambastes Bush 41 for not taking out Saddam. Basically a reverse "he betraaaayed his country!!!"

If Rep's are for it, they're against it, regardless of the actual efficacy of the policy. Same as it ever was.

[JM Hanes]

Too true, alas.

[Pope Ratzo]

Um, "JM Hanes",

The "boys" are coming home? What we're leaving all the female soldiers over there?

Nice to see that you all are still bigots and sexists.

[Jane]

Nice to see that you all are still bigots and sexists.

Yeah and you've got an Obama/Biden ticket. Funny how that worked out for you.

[Cecil Turner]

As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Precisely. In any event the primary difference is not in future conditions, but facts on the ground at present. There is a stark difference in setting a withdrawal timetable in the middle of a closely contested fight (a strategic blunder guaranteed to embolden the enemy) and after the conflict is over. And for all the doubtless correct caveats that the gains are "tenuous" or "fragile," it appears the fat lady is warming up in the background.

Claims from Obama supporters that "we were right all along" ignore the teensy bit about winning first.

[JM Hanes]

Pope Ratzo:

Oh my! As your typical white grandma type (still waiting for that first grandbaby, alas!) it's just so hard to keep up with what's in and what's out. I so appreciate your pointer, and will update my statement on your advice right away:

The Democrats have never been able to distinguish between "The children are coming home; we've won" from "We've won; the troops are coming home" and they're certainly not about to start now, more's the pity.

You're right, dear, I think that's so much better!

[Cardinal Nutzo]

The scary thing is that Obama still thinks we should have left Iraq in 2007!