Need for U.S. Troops Could Drop 'Dramatically'By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, January 18, 2007; A01
Snip...
The head of Iraq's Shiite Muslim-led government defended his country's independence and sovereignty and called on U.S. leaders to show faith in his ability to lead.
Maliki disputed President Bush's remarks broadcast Tuesday that the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing" and took exception to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Senate testimony last week that Maliki's administration was on "borrowed time."
The prime minister said statements such as Rice's "give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration," Maliki said. "But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government."
Snip...
"If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down. That's on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping them and arming them," Maliki said.
more... January 18, 2007
Posted 9:45 am | Printer Friendly | Spotlight
Snip...
It’s hard not to appreciate the irony of it all. When members of Congress, from both parties, criticize the president’s handling of the war, White House officials suggest that lawmakers are undermining the mission and emboldening terrorists. But when the Bush gang criticizes Maliki, and suggests he’s not doing enough to step up and lead, he argues that the White House is undermining the mission and emboldening terrorists.
Indeed, at yesterday’s press briefing, Tony Snow
renewed the treason talk: “It’s probably worth asking, what message does Congress intend to give, and who does it think the audience is? Is the audience merely the President? Is it the voting American public? Or in an age of instant communication, is it also al Qaeda? Is it Iraq? Is it players in Iraq? Is it U.S. troops? Is it people in the Gulf who want to understand whether the United States is, in fact, a partner upon whom they can depend for security even in trying times?”
Given Maliki’s comments, it sounds like all of this could be turned around just as easily on the Bush gang. The Bush administration has said it
has no confidence in Maliki,
describes him as “ignorant” and deceptive, and Bush has personally suggested
he might fire him. Who’s the audience for these remarks? What message does that send to terrorists who wonder whether the United States will stand by their man? What does it tell the troops fighting to help preserve Maliki’s government? What does it tell the region about our nation’s commitment to our friends?
See, Mr. Snow, demagoguery is fun for the whole family.
Snip...
Hey look, it’s an exit strategy. Maliki said if we “speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces,” we can start withdrawing U.S. forces within three to six months. To which I say, “Deal.” Give him the keys to armory, let him fill his shopping cart, and don’t wait for the ink on the withdrawal plan to dry.