Maliki: U.S. can leave ‘any time’

July 14, 2007

As war supporters see it, U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq for the indefinite future in order to provide some semblance of security in the country.

Today, Nouri al Maliki effectively said our presence is no longer needed.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarrassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters earlier this week that a U.S. withdrawal would make Iraq’s chaos worse, but Maliki dismissed his concerns, saying, “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.” In other words, “We can take it from here.”

Kevin Drum noted the other day, “Both the American public and the Iraqi public want us to leave Iraq. However, both the American government and the Iraqi government want us to stay. So we’re staying. This is called ‘democracy promotion.'”

In light of today’s comments, however, it’s tilted even more. Americans and Iraqis want to see a withdrawal, and the Iraqi government is indifferent to our ongoing presence.

Any chance this might change a few Republican votes on the Hill?

Any chance this might speed up Maliki’s departure from his position? It’s what Bush did wit the generals who weren’t giving him the answers he wanted, so I can’t imagine he won’t find a way to get rid of Maliki and get someone in there who agrees that we have to stay.

  • Maliki is bluffing. Without the U.S. army he’d be a dead man within hours. But it’s better for him to pretend to distance himself from the hated occupiers, and he also knows Bush will never allow the U.S. to leave, so it’s safe for now to take this public stance.

    The interesting period will come once the U.S. elections happen and we have a new president-elect not named Bush. Assuming this is any Democrat, Maliki et all will know the game is up and will be preparing for their own bug-out. Will Maliki stay in till the inaugural or depart sooner?

    BushCo won’t need to leave trash all over the White House or chisel out “w” keys when it leaves. My guess is the new U.S. president will face the collapse of the U.S. backed Iraq regime and anarchy in the streets immediately on taking office, a parting gift from Dubya.

  • I am sure that we will exit Iraq when we can show that Halliburton, Bechtel & the other war profiteers can enjoy higher profits by us doing so.

  • Let’s see how they spin this one. It’s never been about what Iraqis want or even what they need. It’s always been about what Bush wants. It’s not about “democracy” or even security it’s about securing America’s corporate interests.

    Will Bush continue to play referee in Iraq’s disputes? Will Bush demand Iraq meet our benchmarks which are not the same in importance to Iraq’s self rule benchmarks?

    How many more ways does Bush need to be told, “Please, get out of Iraq. It’s time to leave”, without Bush claiming, “I’m the decider. I’ll decide when it’s time to leave not you”.

    Who the hell does this guy work for anyway? Only “kings” decide they know what’s best for everyone else in spite of what they want or decide.
    Impeachment is a remedy not a weapon.

  • Right on, Anne at # 1 – I always enjoy your biting and astute political commentary. I personally think there were a lot of tears on Republican pillows when Ayad Allawi failed to pick up even a significant portion of the vote in the Great Purple Finger Campaign. He’s the guy they really wanted, a thug with an acceptable veneer of urbane sophistication – a Baghdad Tony Soprano. He understood the requirement to keep America involved in Iraq until people got tired of complaining, and just let it happen. That’s the difficulty with the present situation; America needs to be there in about the strength it is now to make it work, but the event needs to be passé and off the front page so people aren’t watching so closely, questioning methods and criticizing tactics.

    I think the U.S. could win in an Iraq under Allawi, but there’d be little question of the victory being about democracy and freedom. Rather, it’d be seen even more plainly as the corporate raid it is.

  • Maliki is bluffing. Without the U.S. army he’d be a dead man within hours. But it’s better for him to pretend to distance himself from the hated occupiers, and he also knows Bush will never allow the U.S. to leave, so it’s safe for now to take this public stance. — jimBOB

    I’m inclined to agree. I don’t see much evidence that the Iraqi “government” is sufficiently dedicated to deal with the issues the country faces. It doesn’t have the public backing needed to make the tough calls, nor the means to enforce them.

  • Hey jimbob*********Maliki is not bluffing. He wants more weapons. His plan is a Shiite government backed by Sadr that will rid the country of Sunnis. It’s what He’s wanted all along only the US troops are in the way. Maliki is saying just give us the weapons we need and then get out. We’ll do the rest. He doesn’t like having to play nice with Sunnis.

  • UPDATE: ALL SUNNI INSURGENTS ARE NOW TO BE REFERRED TO AS “al QAEDA”.

    Killing them is so much easier to explain especially in light of installing “a democracy”. Shiites=good; Sunnis= al queda.
    Go Maliki, Go Bush Halibuton KBR Exxon etc.

    From G. Greenwald’s “Our Rotted Press Corps, a division of Camp Victory” 6/30/07…”When is a dead al qaeda in Iraq gunman not a real al qaeda in Iraq gunman?…….When there are independent witnesses.”

    How much more?

  • bjobotts

    Maliki is a figurehead, a placeholder agreed upon by the administration and some of the shiite factions. Without the U.S. to provide security, his government would not survive for any length of time. You’re right that Sadr is planning to screw the sunnis. But the sunnis have experienced military leadership, access to lots of weapons, and financial backing from the saudis. Don’t count them out yet. They could probably take out Maliki if the U.S. were gone. That is, if some other shiiite faction didn’t get to him first.

  • Republicretin Susan Collins after visiting Iraq in December said in an interview that she was also influenced by a meeting the senators had with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “The prime minister made it pretty clear that he did not welcome the idea of more American troops,” she said. “I would speculate that he recognizes that he needs to take control of the situation, that if he’s seen as completely dependent on American troops it’s difficult for him to establish his legitimacy.” (2nd page of linked article)When Maliki didn’t want more US troops in December, it didn’t make any difference to Shrub. A short while later, Shrub announced “the Surge” or more accurately, “Gaza II”.

  • This must be the PNAC,neo-con and American corporatist/militarist worst possible turn of events/outcome for the USA in Iraq.

    Bill Kristol in particular must view this as a matter which ‘must not be named or spoken of ‘ in view of his absurd Iraq opinions/views.W.Kristol is way out there these days with his crazyassed takes on G.W.Bush and situation in Iraq. Either he is fully delusional or has some very out of control reality engage function/dysfunction issues. W.Kristol should not be getting space on The WashingtonPost OP-ED page. Who is letting him do Op-Ed pieces at the WaPo anyway? W.Kristol is deluded and surely in terminal denial about American Iraq Debacle and G.W.Bush’s presidency.

    What is the worst IED the Bush/Cheney WH may still face?
    The Iraqi Government and a clear majority of Iraqis decide to cut the USA free and choose to seek a American departure from Iraq.

    With that request the Iraqis restate and reclaim Iraqi sovereignity. The USA then must abide and indeed depart. Or pull a Israeli styled reset of the situation…namely do current Iraqi regime rejection or pull off coup, ignore the Iraqi people and just go ahead with unilateral American intentions in and for Iraq to be a ME American military base,for American(western energy interests) Iraqi oil control and profiteering potentials to be put in place,promoted and protected.

    I hope the Iraqis do request the Americans to leave and let Iraq work out a solution to the American Debacle imposed on Iraq by the Americans.

    Doing so will soon reveal where the Americans stand on genuine Iraqi sovereignity. Where the Americans stand on what has been obvious from very early on why Iraq was attacked,occupied and the presence of those superbases and the citadel embassy in Baghdad.

    It is doubtful even the Bush/Cheney regime can resist a full court Iraqi push for the Americans to get out of Iraq. It would look real bad for the Americans to not abide with that request throughout the ME.Real bad.

    • Comments are closed.