http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/...main/index.html

 

The agreement states that troops will leave bases in cities and towns by June 30, 2009, and all troops will be gone by the end of 2011. This would mean that, if all goes well, most American troops can come home next year.

 

Any future detentions would have to be ordered by an Iraqi judge, and American troops would have to turn detainees over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours.

 

Soldiers would still receive current immunity from Iraqi prosecution, but private contractors would lose their immunity.

 

Iraqi parliament will consider the agreement after they return from recess on September 9.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the presidential campaign. Obama will say it's a good thing that Bush finally agreed to his (Obama's proposal). As far as I know, McCain has yet to really say anything about it, given that he's been opposed to timelines and timetables this entire time. I guess they only thing he can plausibly argue is that this came about because of the surge.

 

I think objectively this helps Obama for two reasons. First, the agreement will essentially mirror Obama's position all along. Second, it will reduce the importance of foreign affairs (people will be happy that we're leaving Iraq) and will focus more attention on domestic issues, where Obama is strongest.

It should be noted that things are so stable now, that Baghdad held an international sporting event recently.

nice to see things on the ground are to the point where everyone agrees we will be in a position to move out soon

McCain had been supporting a withdrawal as well, but he gave a much longer timeline (2013). Given his statements in February claiming that a date would be 'chaos' and 'suicide' he is either playing politics or there was a mutual agreement among both parties and the special interests to divert our forces elsewhere, given that we are stretched too thin militarily.

 

I have a feeling it is both.

 

I'm ecstatic that we might be leaving Iraq but unfortunately this is likely a maneuver to simply internationalize the war.

 

Yeah, well, I take it you don't think we should be in Afghanistan, either? I think we need to strengthen our presence there and ensure that it doesn't fall back into the hands of the Taliban.

 

Otherwise, I am also ecstatic we're leaving Iraq. Although I am not a total non-interventionist like you, I do think we need to use our military sparingly and only when absolutely needed. Certainly, we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place.

We absolutely should not be in Afghanistan. It's bloodier and more hopeless right now than even Iraq is. It's one thing to use special forces to eliminate sworn enemies against the United States but it's another thing to nation-build.

 

We are slowly escalating an already lost conflict just like we did with Vietnam. Unfortunately, with the Afghan War we will inevitably pay for our actions with American civilian lives on our own soil. We are going to be humiliated just like the Soviets were.

We said this about Iraq last year, and look where they are now.

We absolutely should not be in Afghanistan. It's bloodier and more hopeless right now than even Iraq is. It's one thing to use special forces to eliminate sworn enemies against the United States but it's another thing to nation-build.

 

We are slowly escalating an already lost conflict just like we did with Vietnam. Unfortunately, with the Afghan War we will inevitably pay for our actions with American civilian lives on our own soil. We are going to be humiliated just like the Soviets were.

We said this about Iraq last year, and look where they are now.

 

We said which part?

We absolutely should not be in Afghanistan. It's bloodier and more hopeless right now than even Iraq is. It's one thing to use special forces to eliminate sworn enemies against the United States but it's another thing to nation-build.

 

We are slowly escalating an already lost conflict just like we did with Vietnam. Unfortunately, with the Afghan War we will inevitably pay for our actions with American civilian lives on our own soil. We are going to be humiliated just like the Soviets were.

We said this about Iraq last year, and look where they are now.

 

We said which part?

How bloody and hopeless it was. Then we added more troops, and now al-Qaeda in Iraq is pretty much dead.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was never the real problem. The military has said several times that they were not a major organization in Iraq. The problem was sectarian militias, which still exist in the country. Groups like the Mahdi Army are far more powerful than Al Qaeda has ever been inside Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was never the real problem. The military has said several times that they were not a major organization in Iraq. The problem was sectarian militias, which still exist in the country. Groups like the Mahdi Army are far more powerful than Al Qaeda has ever been inside Iraq.

AQI empowered and inflamed the sectarian militias. It was AQI that committed the one big mosque bombing that kicked off the worst of the sectarian violence, and most of the suicide bombings (which resulted in most civilian deaths) were committed by AQI as well. While the sects have not totally gone away, most have turned to the political arena.

 

As for the Mahdi Army, most of that disconnected from al-Sadr earlier this year, and what was left of his loyal militiamen were told to disarm by Sadr himself recently. Although he reserved an "elite force" to resist if we don't set a timetable to leave expediently, that may not be necessary if this agreement comes to fruition.

Incredible what they can throw together right before the election.