Iraq's security chief sets a date for U.S. troop withdrawal: 2007

A surprising _ and welcome _ plan for troop withdrawal

By MARTIN SCHRAM
Scripps Howard News Service
20-JUN-06

No wonder Americans are confused and frustrated. From Iraq comes war news that's as bad as ever. From Capitol Hill comes a war policy debate in which the House of Representatives sounded like a wholly owned subsidiary of Jingo R Us.

As House partisans spun things, America's choice seemed to be either "cut and run," surrendering to the "evildoers," or endless "grotesque" failures dooming U.S. troops to fight and die in an unwinnable war. "Is it al Qaeda or is it America?" thundered one Republican hack. His Democratic equal addressed the House with hands tied by a thick rope, an idiotic made-for TV protest of a parliamentary rule. Next came the Senate, where legislators are smoother and savvier, but clarity is not among their virtues.

So today we'll clear things up and find the war policy that's in the best interests of the U.S. and Iraqi governments, troops and people. Right after this pop quiz:

1) Who said: "We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007."

2) Who said: "The eventual removal of (U.S. and coalition) ... troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be."

3) Who said: "...the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. ... Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems."

The Answers: For each question, the correct answer is (E) because the quotes were authored by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, a man whose name is always pronounced carefully in public (and come to think of it must be on the lips of readers who feel, with due justification, that they were just dirty-tricked). But wait, Iraq's national security adviser is a soft-spoken man who wields great influence in his government. His words were from his most remarkable op-ed article in the June 20 Washington Post.

Snip...

President Bush must also like the idea. After all, if Iraq's national security adviser says it is by far in the best interests of his government and people, how can Bush-Cheney et al object? Lost in the too-political war debates were crucial questions about what U.S. troops should now be doing in Iraq.