Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
By BASSEM MROUE Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 07/14/2007 03:45:17 AM PDT

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

Al-Maliki sought to display confidence at a time when pressure is mounting in Congress for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. On Thursday, the House passed a measure calling for the U.S. to withdraw its troops by spring, hours after the White House reported mixed progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting 18 benchmarks.

During a press conference, al-Maliki shrugged off the progress report, saying that difficulty in enacting the reforms was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks—"particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

rest of article (http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6375947)

Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
By BASSEM MROUE Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 07/14/2007 03:45:17 AM PDT

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

Al-Maliki sought to display confidence at a time when pressure is mounting in Congress for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. On Thursday, the House passed a measure calling for the U.S. to withdraw its troops by spring, hours after the White House reported mixed progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting 18 benchmarks.

During a press conference, al-Maliki shrugged off the progress report, saying that difficulty in enacting the reforms was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks—"particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

rest of article (http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6375947)

Thanks for posting, but what is your view? comment?

Thanks for posting, but what is your view? comment?According to the latest White House report, the number of Iraqi battalions that can fight independently has fallen from 10 to 6 in recent months, so I seriously doubt that the Iraqi army is in any kind of shape to meet all the 'security concerns' -- if indeed that is what Mr. al-Maliki has in mind. I think he sees the US efforts to woo the Sunni insurgents into fighting against al-Qaeda as a threat to the Shia power base. The Sunni stand to gain militarily by co-operating with the US, thus making it harder for the Shia to control a post-occupation Iraq. Mr. al-Maliki is widely perceived to be a stooge for Moqtada al-Sadr, and it makes sense to me that al-Sadr has just been playing a waiting game, that his militia is poised to take power as soon as the US leaves. In other words, the US presence in Iraq is now becoming more of a liability than an asset for the Shia -- hence the posturing by Mr. al-Maliki.

That said, we should take him at his word leave immediately.

Good, well we should leave and let them get on with it. It's their country - if they want to kill each other fine. Why should our kids continue to die for their sandy shit hole?

Pack up the kit bags....

While I agree that we should pull out, I have no illusions about what Mr. al-Maliki has in mind. He is Shiite, and what he has in mind is a quick victory over the Sunnis. He has no security concerns about Iran, they are his allies. What he is saying is that the Iraqi security forces, which are mainly Shiite, along with the Shiite militias are fully capable of suppressing and destroying the Sunnis in revenge for what was done to them by the Sunnis during the reign of Sadaam Hussein. The Kurds are on their own, and will be attacked by both the Turks and Shiite forces. The only question is whether Syria and the Saudis will intervene militarily. If they do, Iran probably will as well.

While I agree that we should pull out, I have no illusions about what Mr. al-Maliki has in mind. He is Shiite, and what he has in mind is a quick victory over the Sunnis. He has no security concerns about Iran, they are his allies. What he is saying is that the Iraqi security forces, which are mainly Shiite, along with the Shiite militias are fully capable of suppressing and destroying the Sunnis in revenge for what was done to them by the Sunnis during the reign of Sadaam Hussein. The Kurds are on their own, and will be attacked by both the Turks and Shiite forces. The only question is whether Syria and the Saudis will intervene militarily. If they do, Iran probably will as well.I agree with that assessment. The US seems to be the only involved party that strongly advocates unity and federalism. Once we leave, the true dynamics of Iraqi politics and society will come to the forefront, ie. sectarianism based on religion and ethnicity. Those who advocate Iraqi unity and identity will likely be pushed into insignificance.

According to the latest White House report, the number of Iraqi battalions that can fight independently has fallen from 10 to 6 in recent months, so I seriously doubt that the Iraqi army is in any kind of shape to meet all the 'security concerns' -- if indeed that is what Mr. al-Maliki has in mind. I think he sees the US efforts to woo the Sunni insurgents into fighting against al-Qaeda as a threat to the Shia power base. The Sunni stand to gain militarily by co-operating with the US, thus making it harder for the Shia to control a post-occupation Iraq. Mr. al-Maliki is widely perceived to be a stooge for Moqtada al-Sadr, and it makes sense to me that al-Sadr has just been playing a waiting game, that his militia is poised to take power as soon as the US leaves. In other words, the US presence in Iraq is now becoming more of a liability than an asset for the Shia -- hence the posturing by Mr. al-Maliki.

That said, we should take him at his word leave immediately.

The reason the numbers have fallen is that when an iraqi division becomes independent the US military is splitting them in two to either partner with another split division that needs to be upgraded or partnered with a recently graduated division. It doesn't look good for the immediate measuring stick but in terms of building a sustainable force for the long term it is the smart thing to do. They'll get more forces up faster.
Sadr has lost much of his prestige. His militia is under a lot of pressure. He's called for two marches against the US, one which got a very low turnout, @10k and a second which looked to be getting the same. The US tactic has been to split off the moderate part of the mahdi 'army' from the radical section. They're getting results. Twice now sadr's run off to iran to get told what to do. And despite what people may think iraqis and iranians have no love for each other, shia or not.
maliki is no longer beholden to sadr. there are politics afoot to further marginalize sadr by creating a moderate center from the two kudish parties, two sunni parties and the two largest shia parties Dawa and SIIC. The situation remains difficult but there has been improvement.[

Well, this seems to at least undermine the reasoning behind continuing the war that goes as follows: "We can't leave Iraq because we promised that we would support the government."

It sounds like the PM is freeing us of any military commitments we've made.

One more reason why we need to get our military out of there...send 3/4's home, and send the other quarter to Afghanistan to crack down on the people who are REALLY responsible for 9/11.

Moving one quarter of the troops currently in Iraq to Afganistan might not be enough. Moving all of the ground troops into Afganistan may be a better idea.

Moving one quarter of the troops currently in Iraq to Afganistan might not be enough. Moving all of the ground troops into Afganistan may be a better idea.

Well, that might be better if you completely ignore the costs of war at home, like extra monetary cost to our government with its burgeoning debt, families going without parents, and damage to future recruitment of the military.

Besides, the larger of a force you send to Afghanistan, the more you risk Afghani people resenting our presence as "occupiers."

If you really want to strike Al Qaeda, Afghanistan is only the staging area. The real headquarters of Al Qaeda has moved into the tribal areas of Pakistan. They move across the border to fight us, and retreat to rest and resupply. If you want to defeat them, you will have to expand the war into Pakistan.

...send 3/4's home, and send the other quarter to Afghanistan to crack down on the people who are REALLY responsible for 9/11.

Why? 'Cause it worked so well for the Soviets and British?

Why? 'Cause it worked so well for the Soviets and British?

No, cause the alternative is to let Al-Qaeda thrive unmolested.

Besides, the failure of prior armies does not necessarily forecast the failure of future armies. Granted, however, the historical examples are cause to be concerned.

Alright, he said it. That is all I wanted to hear.

So, we can start packing our shit tomorrow.

I doubt the PM's comments will have much effect on our policy. However, it is yet another sign that' we're seeing the beginning of the end of the war.