Maliki 'Clarification' Came After Pressure from U.S.

Earlier today, a German magazine reported that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki said that he favored Barack Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months.

But later, an Iraqi aide to al-Maliki "clarified" the remark.

The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.

Remember when Bush said he would withdraw troops if Iraqis asked him to do it? Now Bush is just playing blatant puppet master.



read more here...

British Troop Withdrawal from Iraq Appears Set for October

Britain is getting out, so why aren't we? This is the big question that Bush wants to avoid. And in his recent visit visit to Washington, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeared willing to help him avoid it as long as possible – at least until October. But Brown did tell Bush he would not delay British troop withdrawal.

British papers are reporting, that despite Brown's proclamations of unity with the Bush administration, Brown will announce the withdrawal of Britain's 5,500 troops from Iraq this October. The 5,500 British troops in Iraq represents a significant reduction by more than half of the highest level of the British contingent. In other words, Britain has been steadily reducing its presence in Iraq.

Brown faces a serious revolt from voters, who have already handed Brown's Labor Party significant electoral losses in the past few local and national elections, if he fails to make the right decision to withdraw troops. Public opinion in Britain, like the US, has turned sharply against the war.

The British withdrawal poses a serious problem for the Bush administration. It defies the claim that a timeline for withdrawal will "embolden the enemy." And because British withdrawal isn't based on "progress" in its area of operation – sectarian violence, political disunity, the lack of a coherent authority, and economic and infrastructural problems persist – it suggests that the US needs to pursue other means than military force and occupation to assist in solving Iraq's internal problems.

Will Bush denounce the British as emboldening the enemy? Will he claim they have caused greater sectarian violence and civil war? Nope. He'll save that for the vast majority of Americans and congressional Democrats who want to do the same thing Britain is doing.

The point is: if British troops get to leave, why not ours?

Pro-Bush Republicans have insisted on waiting for a September report from General Petraeus about "progress" in Iraq before committing to changing course in the war. Some Democrats even appear to have fallen for this political sleight of hand for delaying bringing the troops home. Just wait and let progress happen, they repeat over and over again. Wait until September. Next, we'll hear wait until November. Wait. Wait. Wait.

But we've been waiting for more than 4 years and more than 3,600 deaths. Military occupation has failed to help the US and the Iraqi government reach even limited goals for "progress" in Iraq. Sectarian violence has not, and cannot be eliminated by military force. Security problems in Iraq have been exacerbated by the presents of US troops, as ironic as that may sound.

It is clear that security in Iraq is an international political issue that the US, adopting its current posture, cannot resolve alone, if at all. Hostile postures toward Syria and Iran without serious high-level talks, the presence of a huge US military and civilian force (and unpopular domestic policies imposed on Iraq by the US), contradictory laissez-faire attitudes toward Saudi and Turkish interference in Iraq all combine to create a situation that makes the status quo seem to be the best thing to do.

In other words, hostility toward some of the regional players and the lack of real diplomacy work to enforce Bush's stay-the-course Iraq policy. Doing nothing seriously new appears to be a Bush tactic. If Bush were serious about bringing the war to an end, he would be serious about good-faith diplomacy and find out what it will take to end outside interference (including the US) and allow Iraq to develop its own sense of national cohesion and identity again. Only on this basis will Iraq move out of its ongoing civil war.

Bush isn't interested in this. and the result is an irresponsible and criminal waste of human life, treasure, and resources – our own and Iraq's. Thus, it is up to Congress to continue pressure for a change. But in addition to lining up a plethora of troop withdrawal plans, Congress should refocus the debate away from the jiggery-pokery of "progress in Iraq" and back onto responsible ending of the occupation through multilateral diplomacy, alternative measures for security, real reconstruction, and the struggle against terrorism.

Antiwar Majority Grows in Congress, Bush and GOP Still Out of Touch with Reality

Senate Republicans, using the filibuster, blocked a vote today on an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, to change course in Iraq.

The amendment would have started a redeployment of troops from Iraq beginning 4 months after passage and would complete withdrawal of nearly all US troops from Iraq by April 2008.

The filibuster of the bill is clearly an attempt by the Republicans to 1) avoid being on the record as rubber-stamping Bush's Iraq war policy, and 2) protecting the president from congressional criticism and oversight.

The filibuster happened on the heels of a Republican filibuster of an amendment last week which would have ended the "stop-loss" and extended tours imposed by the Bush administration on troops serving in Iraq. This amendment, offered by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) would have increased rest and "dwell" time for troops being forced to return to Iraq again and again for three and four tours of duty.

The vote on the troop withdrawal amendment garnered 4 Republican votes, however. An increase over the the last Senate vote on troop withdrawal. But the filibuster can only be stopped if 60 Senators vote to "end debate," and 67 votes are need to override a Bush veto.

A similar measure passed last week in the US House, where the antiwar vote grew by five.

There have been a lot of Republicans who are increasingly challenging the Iraq war and hinting they want to see a change in policy, but so far few of them have translated their rhetoric into votes.

It is possible that the rhetoric is merely a political game to appear to differ with Bush in order to soften sharp critiques in their home states and to avoid losing their jobs in the 2008 election without actually doing the right thing.