Bush Offers "Time Horizons" for an Iraq Withdrawal

Anticipating an impending yank away from the U.S. military teat, the Iraqi regime struck a note of independence this week by embracing presidential aspirant Barack Obama's plans for the withdrawal of forces within two years. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki endorsed Sen. Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan. "That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." Maliki told the German magazine.

It wasn't long, however, before the Bush administration had the opportunistic Iraqi autocrat suckling on their unique brand of lame-duck denial as they offered up a scheme to tie the next U.S. administration to the same open-ended commitment of forces and resources that has allowed the Maliki regime to assume and maintain power and authority. In a cynical attempt to appeal to the potential U.S. voters who've soured on the Iraq quagmire, the administration has replaced the language of a timeline for withdrawal -- which most Americans have supported for years -- with a codification of their refusal to relinquish their Iraqi prize.

According to news reports, they've labeled their new obstinacy, a "time horizon." Wiki defines a time horizon as "a fixed point of time in the future at which point certain processes will be evaluated or assumed to end." Under that definition, Bush would exercise the same judgment in the deployment of our forces to Iraq that he's used to justify their continuing mission there, with a rationalization to remain, no matter if in an escalating conflict or in the face of a redundancy of military repression of the Iraqi resistance. Good times, bad times; we never leave. 100 years, ala the MCCain doctrine.

Americans shouldn't expect any better from these two usurpers of power. Bush advantaged himself of a stacked Court to assume the power of the presidency, and, the exiled Maliki advantaged himself of the intimidation of our military forces as he was 'elected' under an increased occupation of Iraq by the forces which invaded the country and overthrew their sovereign government.

"The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions," a White House spokesman was quoted in WaPo yesterday. The article said the two autocracies were looking for another 'bridge' in funding commitments which would extend into next year.

Yet, there's no need to wait until some time 'over the horizon' to assess the effect of Bush's occupation on the "success" or "progress" of the Maliki regime. We have evidence enough of the destabilizing effect of the original imposition of the new regime on Iraqis -- with the new regime's coercive violence waged behind the intimidation of the American occupying forces -- to judge the likely outcome of even more of the same repressive militarism cosseting new edicts handed down to Iraqis from Maliki's puppet authority.

There will be the same predictable waves of resistance from Iraqis who have, unfortunately, taken on the moniker and tactics of Bush's most successful nemesis, al-Qaeda. There will be even more resistance from unaffiliated Iraqis who will look to settle their differences outside of the corrupt and compromised government. We won't need any perpetual, prevaricating assessments of the progress of his imposition of the Maliki regime. The awful failure of his increased and continuing militarism will be as evident as the inevitable increases in casualties which he admits will be a direct result of his pressing our troops forward; and he and his would-be successor McCain know this.

Bush is trying to run out the clock and pass his failure off to the next presidential bunch who will inherit the messes he's made abroad. Despite his vain attempts to define his fiasco, this far, as some progress towards democracy -- and despite Bush's last ditch attempt to consolidate the new regime's U.S.-enabled predominance over them -- he's content to sacrifice our nation's defenders each month in Iraq. He's satisfied to sacrifice those troops -- acting above and beyond the will of the American people and Congress expressed in the November elections, and in the withdrawal legislation which has passed his desk without his fickle signature.

Somewhere, over the horizon, our next president will work to lessen the burden of Bush's occupation on their own presidency. It's an established fact that Sen. McCain intends to keep the prospect of an Iraqi withdrawal over the "horizon," instead of squaring with the will of the American people that our open-ended commitment comes to an end.

The Iraqis may well put their faith in the lame-duck administration's attempts to bequeath to them the unending support of the U.S. military. But, they should know that, if there is a Democratic president elected in the fall, they will need to prepare to quickly assume whatever responsibility for their own security and well-being that they are able while there is still care and attention to the needs of the beleaguered Iraqi regime.

Within the Iraqi inner-circle, there appears to be an anxiousness to get on with the separation, despite whatever amends they are making to satisfy Bush's opportunistic expressing of support he can't ultimately guarantee. The WaPo reports that Sadiq Rikabi, a senior political adviser to Maliki, said in an interview that the Iraqi government still wants specific timelines for a full U.S. withdrawal of combat forces -- contradicting the cynical efforts of the administration to counter Maliki's earlier embrace of Sen. Obama's 16-month timetable with another mind-numbing Bushism.

"There are two principles that determine the military relationship: no permanent bases and no permanent existence," Rikabi said. "In such a way, there should be a timetable for withdrawal."

Principles


"There are two principles that determine the military relationship: no permanent bases and no permanent existence," Rikabi said. "In such a way, there should be a timetable for withdrawal."

Invest now in Federal Time Horizons! You too can live the good life!

literally

"That's an eternally receding horizon, of course. Smirk."

- Commander AWOL

:kick:

You can never get there, that pot 'o gold at the end of the rainbow.

. . . to justify staying. But, there is never any point where they've admitted failure, and, any claim of progress has been followed by an argument from the administration to stay longer to make their wooden puppet into a real boy.

... and the US reputation has being carried away on his shoulder and now lies old, shriveled and dead in the snow (or sand, in this case.)

where do they get these slogans from, I hope those slogans are ditched when a new administration comes in.

2 words: Homeland and War on Terror.

Time horizons are a business concept used to sell the idea that the reward is just around the corner, or, if it's not, then waiting longer for results is already an integral part of the scheme. I also hope for a reality-based administration which won't hide behind empty, deceptive rhetoric and opportunistic labels.

It's sundown for the Bush presidency and we won't have much longer to wait until the obnoxious doublespeak of this filthy administration will be a thing of the past.

It is precisely because we are succeeding in Iraq that we are able to have these conversations today to set aspirational goals for time horizons when we can transition our mission to overwatch, counter-terrorism and training, which is the goal that we share.

I don't know what aspirational time horizon is going to end up in the final agreement.

I don't know what the time horizon is going to be in the -- at the end of the day when we finalize this agreement, but I do know that it will be one that is based on conditions where the commanders on the ground could say, that's a great goal, we're getting -- and as we near it, get nearer to it, if the conditions aren't right, they could pull it back and, or push the date back.

I'm not going to talk about Senator Obama's position. He can articulate that himself. I would just tell you that where we come from, we're not going to talk about specific dates, but we are -- in terms of the press, there will be an aspirational goal, a time horizon that is laid out in the strategic framework agreement.



Q Don't you find it just the slightest bit disconcerting that the Iraqis continue to talk about this time horizon while Barack Obama is there, or while he was there?

MS. PERINO: No. Look, I think that we've always said that we are trying to conclude this agreement by July 31st. We're now at July 21st, and any time, in my experience, that you get nearer to the end of a negotiation, the conversation intensifies and sometimes gets a little bit more vocal. So I don't think it's disconcerting, no.


Q Dana, the term "time horizon" has to imply the setting of date, or dates, of some sort in this agreement. How can you say that this is not a change of administration policy when the President had adamantly -- adamantly -- objected to the idea of time lines, time frames, deadline, anything related to time?

MS. PERINO: I just think that it's important that you make the distinction, Matt, that for many years, over -- since, I think it was '05, '06, and '07 -- many members of Congress suggested that we pull troops out in 90 days from X date, or, in six months from today we'll have no more combat troops there. Those were arbitrary dates that tied the hands of the commanders, that did not give any consideration to conditions on the ground.


The whole reason we are able to have this conversation today with the Iraqis is because conditions on the ground have changed radically, and for the better. And we are willing to talk with them about an aspirational time horizon when we would be able to have them take more security control of their country . . .

As I just said, there will be an aspirational time horizon where there might be -- for example, something that says, we believe that by X date the Iraqis should be able to take care -- take over security control of Y province. That could be the type of dates we're talking about.

Increasingly we're able to be in an overwatch position where we can have the Iraqis' back. That's where they want us to get to, and that's what we're working towards. But it just might take a little while. But in this agreement we should be able to frame up some dates for aspirational time horizons in the future.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080721-1.html