U.S. Intelligence Says Iraqis Will Press for Withdrawal -NYT

[Rose Siding]

The Iraqi government that emerges from elections on Jan. 30 will almost certainly ask the United States to set a specific timetable for withdrawing its troops, according to new American intelligence estimates described by senior administration officials.
...
This pessimism is consistent with other assessments over the past six months, including a classified cable sent in November by the Central Intelligence Agency's departing station chief in Baghdad. But the new assessments, from the C.I.A. and the Defense and State Departments, focus more closely on the aftermath of the election, including its potential implications for American policy, the officials said.

The assessments are based on the expectation that a Shiite Arab coalition will win the elections, in which Shiites are expected to make up a vast majority of voters, the officials said. Leaders of the coalition have promised voters they will press Washington for a timetable for withdrawal, and the assessments say the new Iraqi government will feel bound, at least publicly, to meet that commitment.
...
The government officials who described the intelligence assessments report to different agencies and included both critics and supporters of the war in Iraq. All said they had read or been briefed on the documents, but they insisted on anonymity, saying they did not want to overshadow recent comments by Mr. Powell and President Bush.

http://nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19intel.html

[whistle]

1. Good out by May 31, 2005, so that Bush can not launch...

...a miltary attack on Iran.

[driver8]

11. Shrub will just move the "party" to Iran... n/t

[alittlelark]

2. But will we withdraw our 17 permanent military bases?

It astounds me how few people know about our bases there.

[baby_bear]

6. How can it astound you?

How many places in mainstream media have you ever heard or read about these bases? On the other hand, you could go to PNAC documents and find that these PERMANENT bases were a prime reason to go after Iraq territory (never mind 9/11, had nothing to do with it).

You can bet your bottom dollar that the Bush administration will hang onto those 17 bases and consider that victory.

How come no one asked questions about that to Rice today?

Because even Democratic Senators don't want to admit what a land grab we are undertaking.

crap

b_b

[alittlelark]

7. -sigh- you are likely right.

It is Empire, and it is UGLY.

[Gman]

3. Just another

"Who cares what you think?"

[ECH1969]

4. our intelligence estimates

Are pretty much worthless, I know we like to trump up the ones that that say things we like, but that doesn't make them credible.

I see almost no way the new government of Iraq led by Shiites will force US troops out for at least a year. The main deterent that will keep this from happening for some time is that the Shiite leaders don't want to have their heads on Zarqawi's chopping block and right now his forces and other Sunnis and foreign fighters would kick the Shiites asses.

[alcuno]

5. It's so simple. Do the Shiites really want N. Iraq? or even Baghdad?

They would still control the south (and the oil in the south) and all the holiest shrines of Islam as well as the ports on the Gulf. They could definitely hold their territory in the south.

[alittlelark]

8. But will they be allowed to do so?

The people in those groups want nothing to do w/ privitazation and foreign control of resources.

[alcuno]

10. Allowed? We could never control a Shiite rebellion.

If there aren't enough troops for the cake on our plate now, there definitely aren't enough for that.

[alittlelark]

12. my point.

[NickB79]

16. The Shiite's primary ally would be Iran

Once the US would withdraw its forces, Iranian support for the Shiites would virtually guarantee their ability to conquer the Sunnis and Kurds.

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Iraqis will press for withdrawal

Finally an exit strategy </sarcasm>

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. bush is so dumb that he didn't even consider the consequences

of this "election". His only concern was that it happen, because elections are supposed to be a good thing.
What a simple shit.

[aneerkoinos]

14. Wrong

It was Sistani who stuffed these elections down US throat against their will, the Cabal never planned to have anything but "elections" of selected people selecting people, their preferred version of democracy.

By calling massive peacefull demonstrations Sistani showed beyond any doubt that he controlls his flock, and could with a snap of a finger unleash also absolute violence against the occupier, unless he gets elections that will bring Shia to power. US has stalled best it could, but the bozos are no match to a real player like Sistani, who's been parched in the byzantine clerical/mundane politics and intrigues and has even survived Saddam with his integrity intact in the eyes of his people.

Sistani has made it clear that he will have no patience for postponing the elections any further, and Bush has no option but to accept this. Only (slim) hope for US is to try to play good old divide and conquer, make the Sunni allience of Wahhabis and Saddam loyalists militarily so strong and confident (see how they are succeeding!) that they pose a real threat to the coming Shia regime, which would thus be forced to rely on US military power to retain control of the country. In other words, for US to be allowed to stay in Iraq they need to orchestrate a civil war so they can play the sides against each other and stay in overall control. But I trust (and hope) Sistani too has few tricks left in his sleeve to thwart these US machinations and avoid all-out civil war so he can throw the bastards out...

[RafterMan]

15. Sistani

I make no evaluation of his platform, but the guy has shown himself to be a master politician. He's been extremely impressive right from the start. I wish the Sunnis had someone as talented, so we could end this thing without so many people getting blown up.

The funny thing is that his success will make Bush look successful -- he'll use the US forces as a shield while the new government consolidates power, then toss them out -- just like Bush promised! Small price to pay, though, for getting our troops out of that mess.