I've probably been watching too many reruns of The West Wing but I was thinking that with polls showing the numbers for the GOP as a whole tanking and the off year elections coming up, this may be a purely a matter of political survival whereby the Administration can extract itself from a bloody mess and still save face. after all, when they handed over control to the nominal newly installed government, they promised if the Iraquis ever asked the U.S. to leave, we would. This is an insurgency with terrorists not "freedom fighters" or resistance. Methinks the job will never get done....enough. I personally don't advocate leaving until it's over....over there. I'm merely suggesting a possible strategy that might have been leaked by political operatives as a device.
Make them sign a treaty of some sort and tell them once the coalition forces leave they will not come back, even if begged.
Direct result of the leftists here demanding the same thing.
Fox News is no different from the MSM in using standardized media-speak:
"U.S.-led forces" instead of (international) Coalition forces.
Then the communique is nothing more than a joke. This gives them the right to use violence as a form of protest.
At first glance the conference appeared to be calling for the withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces. But there was broad agreement that the U.S. presence should end gradually as Iraq builds its own security forces to replace the foreign troops.
These are factional leaders. The elected gov't of Iraq would be the one to listen to.
If the US left tomorrow, what do you think the average lifespan of an Iraqi politician would be? Somehow I doubt they want us to leave immediately.
Hey folks, if the Iraqis want us out, it's their country. No need to stay and get our boys killed in a place we aren't wanted. If they want their fate in their own hands, then we need to step out of the way and let them do it themselves.
With the success we have been having of not only putting the countries infrastructure back in place, but making it even more better than it ever has, combined with the training of Iraqis to take over the security of their towns, along with next years US congressional elections, I bet we will see a dramatic drop in the number of troops in 2006. Basically, we will be saying, hey, we've helped you have your elections, and the sh*tters are working...its time for you to take the reins.
This seems to have been a relatively meaningless resolution, although naturally AP puts the worst possible construction on it.
It was an effort of the various Muslim factions to get together and present the appearance of a unified front, but in point of fact they are not unified:
"Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.
"The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans."
Also, the article says that no timetable was specified or agreed on. In other words, this was a failed exercise in talk, talk, talk for PR purposes.
Sounds like a bunch of shi'ite to me.
They keep using the term "leaders" not the "Iraqi government."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the "leaders" they are speaking about are most likely Mullahs.