Iraq government wants US troops out of Baghdad?

[Hamlette]

On Nov. 30, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented Bush with a new security plan for Baghdad. It called for U.S. troops to move out of Baghdad to the periphery, where they would chase down Sunni terrorists. Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish troops, meanwhile, would flood into the city to establish order, at least as they define it.

Maliki essentially wanted the American troops protecting his flank but out of his hair. He didn’t want U.S. soldiers embedded with his own. He didn’t want American generals hovering over his shoulder. His government didn’t want any restraints on Shiite might.

Over the next weeks, Bush rejected the plan and opted for the opposite approach. . .

Then came the job of selling the plan. The administration could not go before the world and say that the president had decided to overrule the sovereign nation of Iraq. Officials could not tell wavering Republicans that the president was proposing a heavy, U.S.-led approach.

Thus, administration officials are saying that they have adopted the Maliki plan, just with a few minor tweaks. In briefings and in the president’s speech, officials claimed that this was an Iraqi-designed plan, that Iraqi troops would take on all the primary roles in clearing and holding neighborhoods, that Iraqis in mixed neighborhoods would scarcely see any additional Americans.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?hp

unfortunately this column is behind the firewall at NYTimes

Did I miss this? Is it common knowledge that Maliki wants US troops out of Baghdad? If so, it makes Bush's plan even more suicidal. Have we not just joined the side of the "Sunni terrorists" against the elected government of Iraq?

More stunning is that the column is by David-Bush-enabler-Brooks. (He gratuitously blames the dems in the first few paragraphs saying it is partly our fault because we did not come up with a plan all dems could agree on without mentioning that Bush couldn't come up with a plan all republicans could agree on either. . . but still, is he not rating Bush out completely?)

[Spearman87]

1. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what Maliki wants

Not that that would automatically make it the best option for the USA. He might move us to the periphery and then let Al Sadr's militias institute ethnic cleansing:

<<"Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish troops, meanwhile, would flood into the city to establish order, at least as they define it.">> Yeah, whatever that means. We would want to at least agree with whatever it meant.....Hitler established order too. Meanwhile, the US troops left to "chase down Sunni terrorists" might just be picking up the stragglers.

I'm not saying it's a bad strategy--I'm suggested versions of it myself for months. But I don't pretend to believe there will ever be stability over there without a lot of bloodshed. It's probably better that Iraqis preside over any bloodletting of their natives than us be doing it