Is the IRAQ WAR Over?

[liberalpragmatist]

Spencer Ackerman - one of the few remaining reasons to read the New Republic - asks today if the war is over?

Maliki's reconciliation plan calls for the US to make a strict timetable and a firm date to withdraw (surprise, surprise - exactly what John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer were calling for and exactly what all the pundits, most of their colleagues, and the nation's op-ed columnists denounced as "arbitrary" and "cutting-and-running").

This is going to be a huge moment tommorrow. If Bush chooses not to withdraw or drags out the process, the veneer will be off.

Granted, if Bush does this, he'll probably declare victory and use it to slam the Democrats with, and so there might go much of our '06 chances. But so what - there are more important things at stake here, like the lives of our troops and of the Iraqi people.

From Ackerman:

WAR IS OVER IF YOU WANT IT:

If this Newsweek story is correct, the war is over. Iraqi PM Nouri Al Maliki will present a reconciliation plan tomorrow that essentially uses anti-occupation sentiment to unite the country, which means offering the Sunni insurgents amnesty for anti-U.S. attacks and demands a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. President Bush will be put in the position of either endorsing precisely what he has for over a year defined as defeat or defying what he insists is a sovereign government on the most important aspect of sovereignty there is. It's hard to see how Bush can reject Maliki's proposal, but it's worth stating that he should accept it wholeheartedly and begin negotiations for a decent interval to get out of Iraq. He'll be able to say, first, that he ended the war, and second, that he ended it in accord with his objective of allowing a democratically-elected government to decide its future for itself. It may not keep Iraq together, and it may not get rid of jihadist terrorism emanating from Iraq, but it's as close as we'll get to victory, and allows us withdrawal with honor. Let's take it.

[flyingfysh]

1. That could be Bush's "October surprise"

to win the Congressional 2006 elections.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. If it gets us out of there it is a small price to pay. nt

[skipos]

5. ABSOLUTELY. nt

[tabasco]

3. The last thing the neocons will do is unass Iraq.

It will take a Democratic administration to end the Iraq occupation. That is because the super-rich, who the republicans represent, are raking in billions from the war. This was the plan all along and any talk by the republicans of withdrawing from Iraq is blowing smoke up your ass.

[Cocoa]

4. the neocons will fight this tooth and nail

Richard Perle, et al, will use IEDs if they have to.

[ladjf]

6. The outcome has largely been decided. The only issue are

how many more people are we willing to kill and to be killed and how much more money are we going to squander trying to prove that the original decision to invade was a good one?

[Clarkie1]

7. We will not decide when the occupation ends...Iraq will.

I think hubris has been displayed by both the U.S. Senate as well as the "President" in the attitude that it is WE who must decide the future of the American presence in Iraq. No. It is the sovereign Iraqi government that will decide that, in negotiations with the Americans (unless we behave in a completely unethical way from this point forward). The most honorable thing we can do is to work with the Iraqi government to achieve their goal. There is no need for US to set a unilateral timetable, because it is clear they do not want us there indefinitely anyway (and never did). The best thing we can do in Iraq to enhance our tarnished image in the world is to be seen working with the Iraqi government and respecting their wishes...neither leaving before they ask us to leave nor staying beyond our welcome.

Maliki's proposal will be debated in the Iraqi Parliament. There is no guarantee of agreement. And, even when some sort of "peace plan" is implemented, it is unlikely to call for U.S. forces to withdraw as fast as humanly possible. We still have responsibilities in Iraq, and we must respect the government there as a sovereign one. Naturally, we may use leverage like all nations do to try and encourage them on what we perceive as the best path (unfortunately what the neo-cons perceive as the best path will not be the best), but the end decision must be up to Iraq in determining when U.S. troops are no longer serving a useful purpose in helping to fix the mess our presence there created.

It looks like it may become a bit of a catch-22 for Bush, depending on how things develop. Fine with me.

(edited for spelling)

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. So, "Mission Accomplished II "? (This time it's REALLY OVER!)

Wonder how many times it will be declared over before it actually is...

[LaPera]

9. Yes, it's now officially an American (BushCo) occupation...

To control the flow of oil...With the world's largest Embassy/Fortress, the construction of 12 new US bases and the huge permanent air strips being built -- Along with the 50 to 60K permanent military personal projected, to control the BushCo puppet regime...that's going to massacre, to try and stifle the inevitable civil war, (already going in full swing), BushCo has purposely created this bullshit, with his imperialistic agenda & lies! But have no fear..the oil will be controlled by BushCo...

Might as well carry out missions against oil rich Iran from the bases we paid for with our tax dollars?

Support the troops!

NOT the occupation.

Bring our troops home, NOW!


STOP THE KILLING OF OUR KIDS FOR OIL & PROFIT!

[GreenTea]

10. Kich!

:kick: