U.S. officials seem to be making progress in convincing Iraqi politicians to let some troops stay in Iraq beyond the December withdrawal deadline. The Washington Post weighs in today (8/4/11) and gets some anonymous straight talk:
“There seems to be broad partnerships and political coalitions emerging that take tough decisions,” said a senior U.S. Embassy official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the issue frankly.
Of course, one way of reading that justification for anonymity is that an official speaking on the record would be less than frank. If that’s worth granting a source anonymity, then it might be worth it. So bring on the frank talk! The rest of the paragraph:
“This is very good, because we don’t want to be the security partner to a dictatorship or to a one-party regime, but rather, we believe we should have acceptance by a broad range of political forces in this country.”
The “frank” talk is that the United States does not want to partner with a dictatorship? Perhaps the source needed to remain anonymous because he or she was aware of the absurdity of this.
The time has come for us to leave Iraq. We have accomplished our goals in Iraq. Our presence risks a return to the levels of violence seen in the 2006 civil war if Sadr assembles his army in responce to our continued presence. We have lost enough of our soldiers. I explore these possibilites along with the costs and successes of the Iraq war on my blog at Truth Matters.
http://jasonbeets.blogspot.com/2011/06/iraq-why-we-must-leave-on-june-6-th-5.html
Re: “an official speaking on the record would be less than frank.” Indeed, these days federal officials, and in particular those high in the DOD, seem to think they are obliged to lie in all official statements, regardless of security considerations. For example, Nicholas Schmidle’s account of the ben Laden shootout in this week’s New Yorker has minute details, right down to the actual confrontation. But then, oddly, nobody seems to know what happened. The official version is that one after another the son of ben Laden’s courier, ben Laden’s son, and ben Laden himself charged approaching Navy SEALs. We are to believe that all three burst from concealment maniacally firing AK-47s at point blank range, yet none of them managed to hit anyone before being shot dead. A source Schmidle identifies as a “senior counterterrorism official” says all three were unarmed. Apart from the dodos of the DOD, there were some genuine American patriots involved in this mission and eventually the truth will out.
No bid contract for Chaney’s Halliburton. Yeah, mission acomplished!
Nobody has mentioned how much of a “Problem” the capture of bin Laden, ALIVE, would have been… for Bush/Cheney, and even more for the Reagan era apparatchiks! How many questions about the arming of the mujahedeen, the logistics, the promises, etc of THAT time in Afghanistan might have made their way into the world… and the consciousness of Americans (who know very little of that time). I’m sure that Republicans, in particular, ae sleeping much more easily, knowing that the Days of Reagan’s campaign in Afghanistan will remain obscured… on Our end, anyhow. ^..^
From the WaPo yarn: “American officials and other observers agree that a sustained U.S. training presence could also help the Iraqis shore up their external defense capabilities and encourage them to buy more equipment from the United States. On Saturday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced plans to buy 36 U.S. F-16 fighter jets, in part to sustain a military partnership.”
Hard to say who’s more sycophantic, the U.S.-installed Maliki government or the U.S. piffle sheet that calls itself the Washington Post. I guess everyone plays a role.
Hey lets be frank….the thing we need to do now is bring all our troops home to SAVE MONEY.This is not about lives lost or boots on the ground anymore.