home

Why Should The Iraqi Gov't Need Leverage To Have US Troops Leave?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:52:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is truly an amazing statement from the Bush Administration:

"We don't think that talking about specific negotiating tactics or your negotiating position in the press is the best way to negotiate a deal," [White House Press Secretary Dana] Perino said after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was quoted in a magazine article supporting the 16-month troop withdrawal timeline proposed by Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate. "However, we understand that they're a sovereign country and they'll be able to do that," Perino said. "We're just not going to do it on our end."

(Emphasis supplied.) If you understand Iraq is a sovereign country, then you should understand that they should not have to have leverage at all in telling the United States to leave. The United States has no right to have troops in Iraq. Indeed, the ostensible purpose of the troop presence in Iraq is to assist the Iraqi government. Suppose the US, in good faith, disagrees with the Iraqi government's assessment of the situation. So what? If they ask you to leave, then you leave.

But of course the most amazing part of this is that the American People as well as the Iraqi government wants the United States to leave Iraq, but for the Bush Administration and John McCain, it does not matter what the people want.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< ACLU Sues Over Felon Disenfranchisement in Alabama | Greenwald v. Sunstein >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Should The Iraqi Gov't Need Leverage To Have US Troops Leave? | 191 comments (191 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If They Ask You To Leave, (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:12:25 AM EST
    you leave.

    I do not question the legitimacy of that statement. I do question if any U.S. president would actually do that if he deemed it not to be in the national interests of the U.S.

    The national interests of the U.S. could be defined as insuring the "oil contracts" remain  in the hands of U.S. companies or to prevent Iraq from becoming the puppet of Iran rather than the U.S.

    While Obama has "committed" to withdrawing combat troops, he has not "committed" to removing all U.S. troops from Iraqi soil. In fact, his position has always been that he would maintain as unspecified number of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.  

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Paprika on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    This is also why the U.S. is not going to be replaced by a U.N. peacekeeping mission made up of countries from the region, which in my opinion is the best alternative if there must be a foreign presence in Iraq to ensure it doesn't denigrate into civil war.

    [ Parent ]
    The press is partly to blame for this nonsense. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:16:08 AM EST
    They still refer to what we are doing in Iraq as "fighting a war." The war is long over, and we won it when Saddam Hussein was toppled. What our military is currently doing in Iraq is occupying it.

    true (none / 0) (#133)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    and providing the stability the political and economic processes that drive Iraq's growth and prosperity - which seems to be working!

    There's a point at which we will no lnger be needed there, perhaps Maliki thinks that that time is now.

    At any rate, if things in IRaq continue on their present course, that time would be soon anyways.

    [ Parent ]

    You are now PERMANENTLY suspended from my threads (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:02:15 AM EST
    Never comment in my threads. All your comments will be deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    I have a feeling.... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:25:13 AM EST
    we will see just how sovereign Iraq is in the coming months.

    I'm wagering not very sovereign at all.

    it will be as soverign (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    as we say it is.


    [ Parent ]
    That'll PO the Muslim nations. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    One of the pressing reasons to resolve the Iraq situation is because as long as we act like conquerors and occupiers, the more we PO Muslim nations.  If any candidate wants to prove their foreign policy credentials to me, they can at least acknowledge that much.

    [ Parent ]
    I think we are to late.... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    to many brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, and in-laws of dead Iraqis to ever be thought as anything else but occupiers and conquerers.

    [ Parent ]
    What I don't get (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    is why no one wants to talk about WHY we have engendered so much animosity from this part of the world. WE have our noses in where they don't belong and have had for a looong time.

    I think Obama gets it, even if he's been woefully loathe to discuss it (which I can also understand, given his position) and I see his policy pronouncements supporting a goal of reducing American presence in the broader Middle East. This is the crux of the problem: we have pissed them off because we have never once BUTTED OUT OF THEIR AFFAIRS.

    This problem far predates the Iraq War, Bush, or even Carter. We have been stirring the pot since the end of WWII and it's time for it to stop.

    It doesn't necessarily follow that we have to become strict isolationists either. This is where I'd segue into a rant about clean energy if I thought it was the place for it. I think you guys understand where I mean to go with all this.

    [ Parent ]

    Permanent Bases (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:25:27 AM EST
    We're in Iraq only as long as they allow us to be. Bush has never paid any attention to international law, so why would anyone expect him to start now?

    We've been looking for a major military base in the region since we were asked to leave Saudi Arabia. I'm sure this administration had this in their plans from the start. They don't want to walk away from the billions of dollars spent on mega bases we've built around the country.

    You'd think..... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:40:11 AM EST
    Kuwait and Qutar would be enough.

    How many bases do ya need on other people's soil?

    [ Parent ]

    To protect our foreign oil supply? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM EST
    We need permanent bases.  Lots of them, I guess.  

    [ Parent ]
    In Venezuela! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    Contrary to popular misinformation, we don't get most of our oil from the Mid East.  It makes sense actually - why import oil ll the way from Africa when you can get it from South America?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't give the nutballs in DC any (none / 0) (#190)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:58:38 AM EST
    ideas. It isn't like they haven't cherrypicked info before to start a bogus war and the dittoheads in Congress haven't picked up their pom poms to cheer em' on.

    [ Parent ]
    To be fair... (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by sj on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    "Bush has never paid any attention to international law"

    ... he's never paid any attention to domestic law either.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush does not pay attention. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Blowback on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    Bush has an attention span so short, he can never pay attention to anything. He lets Cheney tell him what's happened.

    [ Parent ]
    "Protect Our Interests" (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Truth Sayer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    That is what Obama said in his op-ed. Of course we are going to want some kind of presence in Iraq. And so far if you have not noticed Maliki has not said any different.

    There are a lot of back stories here that Big Tent is not considering. This is not just about what Maliki said in an article and what the WH said today.

    For instance Iraq still does not have an effective and fair working political structure, but it is developing. There is no oil sharing deal among the Iraqi factions. The Kurds in the north want separate assurances on other matters. There still is a big divide between Sunni and Shiia. etc etc.

    So just because the Shiia dominated government wants us to leave so they can ride roughshod over the minorities we should do that? I don't think so because to allow that would not be leaving behind a fair situation.

    It's complicated and even Obama, naturally, does not mention these things at the present but you can be sure that he is being briefed on them and is holding them back until elected at which time he will announce that conditions on the ground just do not facilitate our leaving in 'exactly' 16 months.

    There are many layers to this onion and the question Big Tent poses based on a couple of articles is far from the complete story at work here and is has no basis for a complete and comprehensive discussion of us leaving.

    At present we are trying to cut our own deal before the UN mandate which governs our presence there expires. And if a deal is not cut then the UN may very well extend that mandate and Iraq would not have much say in it if they haven't held up their end as with the oil revenue sharing, etc.

    Beyond that we have two other factors. One there is still al queda in Iraq and we have a right to go after them even though they are there because of us they will not leave when we leave and it is our duty to get to them before they get to us or others somewhere in some way. The other thing is that the Shiia owe us. Maliki would not even be talking from his position if we had not freed Iraq from Saddam. Not to say I agree with our attacking Iraq but once a ship has said there are new dynamics formed and that is what we have now. That new dynamic is to make sure Iraq is a fair and democratic country that will not fall into the pattern that it has over the history of that region.

    And I have only touched on some of the complexities. So this is not as simple as Big Tent and some of the other bloggers try to make it. The argument for when and how to get out of Iraq simply cannot be put forth in a few blog posts that are based on second, and third, and fourth hand information.

    [ Parent ]

    This is what makes your position untenable (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:24:03 AM EST
    You write:

    For instance Iraq still does not have an effective and fair working political structure, but it is developing. There is no oil sharing deal among the Iraqi factions. The Kurds in the north want separate assurances on other matters. There still is a big divide between Sunni and Shiia. etc etc.

    So just because the Shiia dominated government wants us to leave so they can ride roughshod over the minorities we should do that? I don't think so because to allow that would not be leaving behind a fair situation.

    You know what that means of course. We NEVER leave. IF that is your position, say it clearly.

    [ Parent ]

    No it does not mean (1.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Truth Sayer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:40:48 AM EST
    we never leave. And I didn't suggest that nor would agree with it. Things take time to develop and it is the Iraqis themselves who have been dragging their feet politically, not us. Their total sovereignty is in their own hands not ours or the UN's.

    Yours is the untenable position of saying NEVER. You have no basis to say that as fact. Sure we could have military presence in Iraq for a long time with their permission. So could other countries as is done all over the world. But that is not what you are suggesting.

    You can try to pick apart what I wrote but it will do no good. What I wrote are facts that are well known and as I said a few blogs posts are not going to come to any conclusion here on the bigger picture.

    Not to say that it should not be discussed piece by piece on blogs, it should be. But as stated their are many pieces to be discussed and it is a complex situation.

    And again, even Obama knows that but is not acknowledging it as he likes to keep his message overly simple as if all people are dumb. McCain is being more upfront about Iraq than Obama is.

    [ Parent ]

    So How Many (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by creeper on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    Things take time to develop
    more Friedman units are you asking for?

    World War II didn't last this long.  Go hawk your occupation where people believe the nonsense you're spouting.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    So you say it is up to the Iraqis, therefore we should stay? Sheesh.

    You say the Iraqis have not done it and it is their fault so therefore we should stay? Sheesh.

    But this is the part I love "You can try to pick apart what I wrote but it will do no good. What I wrote are facts that are well known. . . "

    What did you write that is a "well known fact?"

    You write your opinions mostly and opinions that are contradicted by your own statements.

    Your comment was ridiculously easy to take apart.

    N


    [ Parent ]

    You previously addressed (none / 0) (#183)
    by Truth Sayer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    only one thing I said and injected your own opinion that we would NEVER leave. From an occupation standpoint I disagreed with that.

    As far as what you said in the post I'm responding to BTD I have seen you play this game with others - twisting words around, saying something was said that wasn't said, saying facts are not facts, etc. No thanks I won't participate in that silliness. If you want to discuss the substance of what I originally wrote then I would be happy to do that but this gotcha game you sometimes play with people I don't have time for.

    I'll stand by what I wrote with great confidence and am glad to discuss it. Have a great day, and I mean that.

    [ Parent ]

    Look (none / 0) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    I quoted you back to yourself.

    Id o not appreciate your accusations against me and indeed I am now suspending you from my threads for the day.

    Come back tomorrow to my threads if you like. Or not.

    These personal attacks stop NOW. Do you understand? No more. do it again and the suspension from MY THREADS will become permanent.

    Do NOT reply to this comment and do NOt comment ANY MORE in my threads TODAY.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess when you are (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
    getting stuff from right and left it means you are in the right place.


    [ Parent ]
    Martin McGuinness (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    went to Iraq a week or so ago in order to talk with various folks from Sunni and Shiaa groups about trying to reconcile the two sides and shrink that divide.

    [ Parent ]
    Oil as national security (none / 0) (#192)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:59:58 AM EST
    Bush and co sure succeeded in defining oil and energy as the national security issue of our time.  

    You sound as if you are blaming the Iraqis for the absence of oil sharing agreements.  The oil sharing is NOT just an Iraqi issue.  OPEC is involved and so are many countries (especially the US) grabbing for a piece of that pie.   Agreement needs to be made not just over how the revenue will be split between factions but as to how much independence and control over their own assets they are going to give away.

    [ Parent ]

    the largest embassy in the world in (none / 0) (#134)
    by thereyougo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Baghdad was or is in the finishing stages. A micro city to house 7,000.  That does not appear to me that the US is leaving ANYTIME SOON -- even 16 months. As John McCain said we'll need to be there for 100 years, and he wasn't kidding.

    I wish Obama would cut the military budget and fix the crumbling infrastructure that was revealed by the Katrina hurricane.I don't believe he would, just because he has no military experience and would appear weak if he did.

    The US created the quagmire and its the responsible thing to see it through. I want out of Iraq as much as the rest because the debt is sinking the nation, but the catch 22 is that the US created the mess, and an outside presence is necessary,ideally someone OTHER THAN the US, mostly because of the perpetual secterian strife that feeds itself from US presence.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:52:19 AM EST
    In total agreement about staying to control the region and the OIL and that al-Maliki is doing what all pols do prior to an upcoming election.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    This is a political gaffe but legally, probably a correct statement.  Even if the official Iraqi position (which is not, btw, determined by what the Prime Minister says in an interview) is that US forces need to leave with all deliberate speed, the UN mandate expires in December and there still probably has to be some sort of Status of Forces Agreement negotiated to define our role during the interim period.

    It really chafes me, by the way, that the UN mandate is scheduled to expire in an election year.  I'd be very interested to know the process by which the Security Council decided on that particular timing.

    Regardless, this presents a productive political opportunity for Obama, if he wants to take it.

    I do not understand your legal analysis (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    IF the UN mandate expires in December, by what legal right can the United States insist on staying beyond that point?

    [ Parent ]
    when did our government (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    start caring about "legalities"?

    [ Parent ]
    Pursuant to (none / 0) (#187)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    the Status of Forces Agreement that is currently being negotiated between the US and the Iraqi government.

    In 2007, when Maliki requested one final renewal of the UN mandate until the end of 2008, he said that he expected it to be replaced by a new agreement directly negotiated between Iraq and the US.  That process is currently underway.

    Iraq would, in theory, have a "nuclear option" of sorts if they wanted to simply tell us "look, no deal, get your troops out immediately."  I don't think this is a realistic possibility.

    [ Parent ]

    "currently being negotiated" (none / 0) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    And if no deal is made, then what?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#200)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    If there's no deal at all, that's kind of equivalent to the nuclear option, I guess.  We wouldn't have authorization to be there any more.  Maliki could still ask the Security Council for an additional extension of the mandate, I assume, even though he said he wouldn't.

    In the big picture, my point is that the US does, in fact, have things that Iraq wants.  Even if Maliki thinks Iraq is ready to take over security operations, our troops are still providing an important additional measure of security; a negotiated withdrawal could, for example, allow Maliki to ask that troops remain for a few extra months in the areas where they're needed most.  Also, I assume Iraq hopes to receive some measure of foreign aid and additional assistance from the US towards rebuilding its economy and infrastructure; they're unlikely to get anything, though, if they deploy the nuclear option and force us to engage in a chaotic withdrawal.

    So it's in everyone's interests, I think, for a negotiated agreement to happen, and that's why leverage matters.  It won't just be the Iraqis dictating terms to us.  As a matter of domestic politics, though, I agree with your point in this post and I always have.  It ought to be easy for Obama to say "if the Iraqis want us to leave, of course we're going to leave - what's with this notion that they need to have leverage first?"  But Obama doesn't invite you on his conference calls the way that other campaign did.

    [ Parent ]

    After January Bush and friends (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:35:43 AM EST
    don't get to say much more that matters.  I can't see how McCain has a chance of winning this election either with so many Americans wanting OUT OF IRAQ and now Iraq wants us out too.  It's win/win

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    McCain still out polls Obama on the Iraq issue. Figure that one out?

    [ Parent ]
    I think we are going to have to wait for (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:03:17 AM EST
    some recent polls to get to the current meat of what the people think about this now.  This issue is in play and when it comes to wars the most decisive leader gets the war points.  Obama is acting rather decisively right now and telling a bunch of whiners nonverbally to stuff it :)  It's a show of strength under pressure.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is out playing McCain (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:18:36 AM EST
    and maliki is happily helping him do it.

    good for Obama I suppose. I suppose even the puppets have tired fo the GOP.

    [ Parent ]

    thats an interesting point (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    I wonder if we will not see more pointed questions directed toward Obama.  it has already started.  the press doesnt like being revealed as blatantly biased.
    and they have been. they are becoming a punchline.
    they dont like that.

    [ Parent ]
    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    yesterday had McCain beating Obama on this issue. I think that Obama is going to have a hard time with this issue due to cultural issues more than any particular policy statement.

    [ Parent ]
    Current as in the public being allowed to (none / 0) (#214)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    digest Obama's new involvement with Iraqi leaders in talking withdrawal.

    [ Parent ]
    an easy one (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    he has a chance because of the alternative.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama giving presser in Jordan now (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    He reaffirms his commitment to withdraw from Iraq.

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    I hate watching the news right now.....bleh!  It just gets worse for McCain though.  I'm so happy that Obama is doing this.

    [ Parent ]
    Very valid points, creeper, but (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    please leave out the "f" word, along with the "s" word, and any others which your favorite aunt who'd be offended by coarse language would frown at you over.

    It's not that we are incapable of swearing like the proverbial sailor or cussing like a mule-skinner, but rather that there are filters in the software that many law firms and companies use, where a lot of professionals who read this site work.  When one of those coarse words goes through the filter, it doesn't - it gets caught and then the site gets blocked because the stupid filters think the coarse word means the site is pron, and pron is bad to have in the workplace (thus, the acronym NSFW).  And when the site gets blocked, Jeralyn has to spend entirely too much time pleading on the telephone with some sysop to get the ban lifted.

    Try using the asterisk, as in "Republicans have totally, and quite deliberately, f*cked up [insert name of anything they touched] and, as a result, we'll have to be cleaning up their sh*t for decades to come."

    We all know what you, and I in the example, mean.

    Thanks For the Reminder, scribe. (none / 0) (#173)
    by creeper on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    That's not a word I commonly use, as you can see from my comments.  It's a mark of my frustration with people who think we can stabilize the Middle East that I used it to begin with.  BTW, I AM the grandmother.

    Oh, and to Truth Sayer...thanks for the one rating.  I wear your disapproval proudly.

    [ Parent ]

    There is also the problem of Turkey (3.00 / 1) (#69)
    by laurie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:22:59 AM EST
    hoping for the PK excuse to invade Kurdistan and its oil fields.

    Duet for Dog Whistles (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    In his NYTimes Op-Ed, Obama specified troops staying in Iraq until "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" was vanquished. That would include Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and the province in Iran bordering Iraq.

    Meanwhile, in the "gaffe" of the week -- that's not a gaffe, IMO -- McCain appeared on mornint TV to discuss troops staying in Iraq to secure the "Iraq-Pakistan border." Of course there's no such border, however Iraq's shared borders are as per Obama's Mesopotamia qualfier, above.

    I take both approaches as pistol-winks towards Israel and towards (NATO member) Turkey.

    For a day, at least, the images of the two presidential candidates offered a sharp contrast. In an interview on "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. McCain talked about securing the "Iraq-Pakistan border," a momentary misstatement of geography. (American forces are pursuing terrorists along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; Iraq does not border Pakistan.) His aides staged an event where he was seen riding in a golf cart in Maine with the first President George Bush, while Mr. Obama flew over Iraq in a helicopter with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander. (For Obama, A First Step is not a Misstep, By Richard A. Oppel Jr. And Jeff Zeleny, NYTimes, July 22, 2008)


    [ Parent ]
    a lot of competetion for the gaffe of the week (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:44:59 AM EST
    The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

    "It is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

    "But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.

    [ Parent ]

    He does seem to have a problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    remembering that.

    [ Parent ]
    we will just have to keep (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    reminding  him.

    [ Parent ]
    There is too a border (none / 0) (#196)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    stop picking on McCain.  Even MY is capable of showing the Iraq/Pakistan border (it's that very thin green line.  :)

    At least the Iraq/Pakistan area is smaller than the whole of Mesopotamia.  All of mesopotamia?  sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    Naw, Turkey (none / 0) (#127)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    just wants to wipe out the PK completely.  They'd probably make a play for the oil fields if the Iraq disintegrated, but I doubt they'd do it before then.

    [ Parent ]
    The military (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:14:27 AM EST
    commanders were going to the press yesterday and undercutting Obama.

    A blatantly unlawful act by them (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:32:29 AM EST
    They better stop it or find themselves in serious trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you serious BTD? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:48:47 AM EST
    From whom are they going to be in trouble? Have you seen any spine anywhere that would give you such an impression?

    [ Parent ]
    I am perfectly serious (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:58:39 AM EST
    Watch.

    [ Parent ]
    Unlawful? (1.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Truth Sayer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    Not even.

    Why unlawful? They have as much of a right to weigh in with their opinions as Obama has to weigh in with his. It is they who must, and have, addressed the public as to the military situation in Iraq. On TV shows like MTP. In public testimony. Via MSM interviews. What you are saying is silly and I can't quite imagine why you would say what you are - other than for effect.

    Unlawful! Not even.

    [ Parent ]

    It is unlawful (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by eric on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    read:

    LINK


    A member on AD shall not:

    (1) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

    (2) Be a candidate for, or hold, civil office except as authorized in subsections D.2. and D.3., below.

    (3) Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.

    (4) Make campaign contributions to another r of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.

    I am pretty sure there is a federal law, as well.

    BTW, did you really not know about the prohibition against military involvement in politics, or were you just being willfully obtuse?  It is one of the fundamental tenets of our republic...


    [ Parent ]

    Do you have actual quotes (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Truth Sayer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    of what was said in a political manner by the mentioned military personal?

    what you posted are known facts. The question is what what was actually said and whether what was said falls under the purvue of the DoD regulation? I doubt that is does because if military is commenting on their operations then they are well within their bounds.

    To comment on operations is not influencing an election. Let's be real here.

    [ Parent ]

    this is not snark, but do you expect better from (none / 0) (#146)
    by thereyougo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:09:45 AM EST
    this administration since IT has broken international law, lied to his own country to go to war? The crumbling for the rule of law starts at the top.

    I don't expect the military or anyone from this bunch to follow the rule of law, as they feel entitled by something to make up their own or ignore it. Take your pick.

    [ Parent ]

    Ohmigod. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    First: The military answers to the civilian leadership elected by the people of the US, so the military is supposed to have opinions on matters military, (ie: how wars are going, recruiting, weapons systems, etc) when asked.  But NOT on politics. EVER. This is not a bananna republic, it is a democracy.

    Second: Despite what the Bush Admin would have average Americans believe, military commanders do not make national policy. Look for military pushback when the GOP tries to leaver them holding the bag for Bush's ME mistakes.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually it is unlawful or at least against regs (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    I'm a "civilian" in both senses - not a military officer or a lawyer, but I have worked with and for the military before. From the DoD Regulations:

    1. General

        a. A member on AD may:

            (1) Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

            (2) Make monetary contributions to a political organization-

            (3) Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

        b. A member on AD shall not:

            (1) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

            (2) Be a candidate for, or hold, civil office except as authorized in subsections D.2. and D.3., below.

            (3) Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.

            (4) Make campaign contributions to another r of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.



    [ Parent ]
    Failure to obey a lawful general order (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    or published regulation is a court-martial offense.

    Disobeying orders is not favored in the military.

    It's also called insubordination, also a court-martial offense.

    We had this happen in 2006, too.  The way it works out - as long as they're supporting the Republican position, they don't get trouble.  When its a Dem, watch out.

    You know - IOKIYAR.

    [ Parent ]

    If they are commenting on policy (none / 0) (#199)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    rather than a candidate they will get away with it in the same way many of the soldiers that disagree with being Iraq have managed to get away with dissenting out loud.

    It's incredibly one sided to say that soldiers on the ground in Iraq have the ability to sound off on being in Iraq and how they perceive things are going and what direction we need to go then say the leaders of these soldiers are somehow going to get in trouble if they weigh in as well. Particularly if these leaders have the blessing of the CIC for stating their positions(as I am sure the case is here.)

    As much as you might like this to be a blatant violation I daresay it will register as one. The military and how it chooses to enforce its regulations is alot more complex than people are making it out to be.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree. (none / 0) (#11)
    by wasabi on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    I'm not sure what you expect to happen, but I agree this is a very dangerous situation for our country when the military becomes overtly involved in politics.

    [ Parent ]
    The Bush Admin has politicized (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    every aspect of gov't, including the military, whose leadership has been corrupted. How far down the rot extends is anyone's guess, but if it has infected the Officer's Corps...

    [ Parent ]
    Are you new to America? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Are you a fool? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:38:09 AM EST
    Bad question.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    No heh (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    Take the personal insults out of your comments or you will be suspended from my threads.

    [ Parent ]
    What will be intriguing... (none / 0) (#151)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:12:41 AM EST
    ...much like watching a car wreck, will be to see the contortions into which the press will twist itself to show how the military wasn't interfering with the election. I imagine it will involve Al-Maliki, Bush, some lower level functionaries... Anything to prove that it wasn't Obama's election years stance that caused the undercutting.  

    Don't worry, the good ol' MSM will make sure that the public has no idea what's going on.

    [ Parent ]

    If only Congress could credibly threaten them. . . (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:31:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What, like it threatened the White House? (none / 0) (#37)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:50:36 AM EST
    This is something the military will have to deal with from within. I'd suspect that the core of the military is not happy with what's been happening at the top. President Obama could probably help things along by picking his military people wisely. And think Wesley Clark as Sec of Def...

    [ Parent ]
    Requirement that the Sec. of Defense (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    be retired from the military for 10 years prior to the appointment.

    Clark does not meet that requirement.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe that can be waived (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    And for someone like Clark I imagine it easily would be.

    [ Parent ]
    IIRC doesn't any type of waiver require (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    Congressional action?

    [ Parent ]
    It does (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:01:16 AM EST
    The point here is that a Dem President can expect a waiver from a Dem Congress.

    But Obama won't pick Clark anyway so the point is moot.

    [ Parent ]

    IF (none / 0) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    the Dem Congress had a backbone and a knowledge of such things.

    Those two items are...well...questionable.

    [ Parent ]

    naw (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:39:36 AM EST
    I don't think Obama goes down too well in  military circles. Clinton (Bill) didn't - and Obama's far left of Clinton.

    At least Kerry served in the Navy and, moreover, volunteered for a ToD.

    Obama just isn't even in the same league there.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:40:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    please (none / 0) (#59)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    name one single fallacy in my previous post.

    Obama IS left of Bill Clinton

    The Pentagon and the military wERE quite contemptuous of Bill Clinton.

    Obama DOES NOT have an ounce of military experience under his belt - unlike Kerry.

    I'll even go so far as to add that you can bet that the miltary suspects that Obama will slash their budget just as Clinton did - which again doesn't lend himself well to popularity among military circles.

    [ Parent ]

    he did name (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by eric on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    the fallacy:  Non sequitur

    In other words, what you wrote doesn't follow from what you responded to.

    I would also add that it just plain nonsensical.  The experience or lack of experience of Clinton or Obama has nothing to do with BTD's comment about the propriety of the behavior of these military commanders.

    Get it?

    [ Parent ]

    eric (none / 0) (#117)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:49:42 AM EST
    um, you DID read Ga6thDem's comment, no? - the one BTD disagreed with?

    Note to self: contrary to my previous assumption, following the thread of responses is not - I reapeat not - something all of us do automatically.

    [ Parent ]

    I suspect that this (none / 0) (#131)
    by eric on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    might be a waste of my time, but here goes...

    You wrote:


    naw, I don't think Obama goes down too well in  military circles. Clinton (Bill) didn't - and Obama's far left of Clinton.

    At least Kerry served in the Navy and, moreover, volunteered for a ToD.

    Obama just isn't even in the same league there.

    It was clearly in response to BTD who wrote:

    A blatantly unlawful act by them
    They better stop it or find themselves in serious trouble.

    That is the non sequitur.  What you wrote was just some kind of justification that you have for why people might not like Clinton or Obama.  It had nothing whatever to do with the issue of the propriety of this type of behavior by those in the milityary.

    You weren't replying to Ga6thDem's comment.  If you were, and just clicked in the wrong place, you wouldn't have written, "naw".  Anyway.  I am just doing this to point out to you that you won't get away with fudging around here.


    [ Parent ]

    You're first fallacy is not (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:14:52 AM EST
    understanding what the word nonsequitor means.

    [ Parent ]
    Who the hell are the military and Pentagon (none / 0) (#66)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:22:17 AM EST
    to be contemptuous of any civilian leadership elected by the people of the USA? Do you condone this type of nonsense from the military leadership?

    [ Parent ]
    false premise (none / 0) (#93)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    Uh, Obama hasn't been elected yet by the people of the USA.

    [ Parent ]
    No, just (none / 0) (#154)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    the People of Illinois.

    [ Parent ]
    What exactly (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:44:48 AM EST
    is going to happen? This went on in 2004 and nothing happened. Expect more of this in the coming months. According to my family member in the military there's huge animosity towards Obama in the service.

    Any verbal attack on the military will be seen as "Obama hates the military." Obama had a huge strategic blunder during the primaries by not getting his own "wing commanders" and later by throwing Gen. Clark under the bus.

    [ Parent ]

    Please cite what they did in 2004 please (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:59:13 AM EST
    You are incorrect.

    [ Parent ]
    Petraeus (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    op ed in the Wa Po in Sept 2004 was pretty much an endorsement of the Bush policy don't you think?

    [ Parent ]
    It was in my opinion (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    Most of the military wants out of Iraq though too.  If Obama leads them out of Iraq decisively they'll like him more.  If he removes the Iraqis who worked with us and doesn't leave them behind to be murdered that would be even better still.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed it was (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    And he was roundly criticized for it and never said another word after that.

    HE will not repeat that mistake.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    that's probably why all the officers are now going to the press anonymously.

    [ Parent ]
    In serious trouble? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Emma on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    From whom?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with Truthsayer (none / 0) (#198)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    Military members can communicate with they just have to go through the chain and make the chain aware of what they will be conveying. Guess who is at the top of the chain BTD?(Mr use the military for a photo op) Guess who he wants to win?

    I don't forsee these commanders getting into a bit of trouble.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting. That's bad--really bad. (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:30:46 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Who said what? (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    Is it any different than anything else they have siad that is in disagreement with Congressional Dems that want a timeline?

    [ Parent ]
    They (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:50:19 AM EST
    don't allow reporters to use their names, only "commanders and officers on the ground in Iraq". I was at the gym working out but the gist of the story was that they didn't agree with Obama's proposal and that the facts on the ground didn't support his statements.

    [ Parent ]
    Any names given (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    Do you have link?  I want to read it.

    [ Parent ]
    Anonymously (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:52:39 AM EST
    It was reported on the cable news yesterday. I was at the gym and they were talking about this. The reported said that "military commanders on the ground" dispute Obama's statements and don't believe that we can get out of there in 16 months. Of course, I thought that Obama had also said that we were going to stay longer than 16 months too.

    [ Parent ]
    Wes Clark wouldn't have allowed (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    these hooligans to run him out of his job :)  There are still Wes Clark style leaders in the military right now, they just have nice quiet jobs.  Also, some who left will come back but there are some very quiet Clarkies punching the clock right now too.

    [ Parent ]
    I am amazed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:39:37 AM EST
    That the Bush administration "understand(s) that they're a sovereign country"

    I wonder if Cheney agrees with that?

    Of course Cheney knows Iraq is a sovereign power. (none / 0) (#32)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    Belligerent military occupations are an unhappy fact of life/history. As such they are countenanced, as long as the occcupiers are constrained  by the laws of war, under the Hague Conventions of 1907 and Geneva Convention of 1949.

    There is, unfortunately, nothing "amazing" about what we are doing in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    Your kidding! (none / 0) (#203)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    Belligerent military occupations have happened before!! Who knew!

    [ Parent ]
    "leverage" (none / 0) (#4)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:42:16 AM EST
    this is politics BTD.  The question isn't whether the sovereign state of Iraq can tell the US to leave, its the current Iraqi government working to dictate the terms of a withdrawal that will result in the al-Maliki faction maintaining power after the US has "withdrawn".

    Oh, I think the question is indeed (none / 0) (#15)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM EST
    whether the state of Iraq can tell us to leave. The Bush Admin is making perfectly clear that we will not be leaving any time soon, and John McCain is a little ambiguous on the point. Via Pat Lang:
    Just now, McCain said that there are agreements between Maliki's government and the US concerning the circumstances and timing of US forces' departures.

    He said that these are circumstances based, not date based.

    The implication was clear in the way that he said this.  That implication is that withdrawal must be based on mutual agreement.

    We are the occupying power. We have the final say. We will only be outta there if Obama is elected.

    [ Parent ]

    Even (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:52:25 AM EST
    if Obama is elected, I don't expect us to be out of there. I think it's going to take years to untangle the Iraq situation.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean by untangle? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:58:47 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Better (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    word would perhaps be disengage.

    [ Parent ]
    It will take (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:37:00 AM EST
    </