Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’
Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’
Gen. David Petraeus, top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress this week that he is recommending to President Bush that the United States “pause” the draw down of troops in Iraq this July for at least 45 days in order to assess the security situation there.
Bush has now accepted Petraeus’s recommendation, “leaving open the possibility that about 140,000 U.S. servicemen and women will still be in the war zone when the next president takes office.”
But there is one important decision-maker that Petraeus and Bush don’t seem to be listening to: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The AP reports that Maliki told Bush yesterday that he “disagrees” with Petraeus’s recommendation “citing the growing capabilities of Iraq’s own security forces”:
The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.
Bush actually agrees with Maliki. Last month, Bush said the Iraqi government’s offensive against Shi’ite militias in the southern city of Basra “shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge.”
Moreover, Bush has also said that if Maliki wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq, then “we would leave“:
BUSH: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. […] We are there at their request. […] but if they were to make the request, we wouldn’t be there.
Bush has consistently expressed confidence in Maliki’s leadership and judgement saying he had seen “the strength of his character,” that he is a “strong leader,” and a “good guy” with “deep determination.”
If Bush has so much confidence in Maliki’s character and leadership abilities, then perhaps he should take his advice.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
45 Responses to “Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Pssst. Headline typo: should be an “r” in Petraeus.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:19 amShould be a “B” in Betrayus. What a cheap, cheesy tin soldier liar. I haven’t seen that smarmy a performance since Eddie Haskell. This guy should be selling vinyl siding.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:21 amOur local RightWing propagandist for the Oregonian newspaper was mocking Democrats this morning for suggesting that they had a different version of “progress” than Petraeus offered — so silly of them to dispute someone who actually came over from Iraq for the hearings. I wonder if he’s ready to mock Petraeus for suggesting to know more about the situation than the Iraqi Prime Minister.
Somehow, I doubt it, since he never mentioned any of the skeptical Republicans, just Democrats. Being a neocon mouthpiece apparently incapable of independent thought renders all this unlikely.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:23 amBush has consistently expressed confidence in Maliki’s leadership and judgement saying he had seen “the strength of his character,” that he is a “strong leader,” and a “good guy” with “deep determination.”
This statement alone is enough for me to be suspicious of Maliki. GDumbya’s judgement of others is suspect — Brown, Rice, Cheney, Putin, Chalabi, “Curveball”, Abramoff, etc.
The blind are indeed leading the blind.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:23 amlet’s see, the prime minister wants US troops out, the Iraqi parliament wants the troops withdrawn, the Iraqi people want the soldiers gone, the American people want the GIs to come home, the troops themselves want out, so….Bush keeps the troops there, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting it.
Bushhitler logic at it’s finest.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:27 amThis should come as no surprise to anyone. Bush has always listened to those who agree with him, and ignored those who don’t.
Maliki says “don’t leave”, Bush says “okay.” Maliki says “leave”, Bush says “wrong answer - come back to me with the right one.”
Petulant, imbecilic child.
PEACE
April 10th, 2008 at 11:30 amBut, uhhhh, could you leave us another 50 Billion before you go? It would really help with the, uhhhh, rebuilding, you know?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:30 ambtw- If you liked the Vietnam war, & the Iraqi quagmire, you’ll LOVE McCain. His campaign song is bombing Iran, want to stay in Iraq for a century, he even would do MORE pre-emptive wars. see it at http://www.rawstory.com
April 10th, 2008 at 11:31 amUncle Ho Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Bush keeps the troops there, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting it.
____
Nah, there are still plenty of other supporters.
The CEO of KBR, for example. And perhaps Bechtel. And Royal Dutsh Shell.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:32 amSounds like Iraq is asking us to leave. Let’s go.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:34 amUgh, look at the Chimp’s grip (or lack thereof) in the photo above. Wet noodle…
April 10th, 2008 at 11:36 amMaliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’
- - Who does Maliki remind you more of, Charlie McCarthy or Mortimer Snerd?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:36 amBush to Maliki: “I’m the Decideror. You can’t be the Decideror. I Decided already. You’re either with us or you’re against us. We got this regime change stuff down real good. You want us to regime change you? Bring it on!”
April 10th, 2008 at 11:36 amThere goes the last pretense that this is a war instead of an occupation.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:41 amlook at the Chimp’s grip
Yes, the sign of a dishonesty.
Basically the limp grip says “this gesture means nothing”, as anyone whose ever been on the receiving end of the “fcuk you” handshake.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am06-28-05: ‘As Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down,’ Bush Tells Nation
April 10th, 2008 at 11:42 amWhat??
You mean the current regime actually doesn’t have the interests of the Iraqi people or their democratically elected *cough* government in mind when it formulates policy for Iraq?
I’m shocked, SHOCKED, I say!
April 10th, 2008 at 11:44 amSEE, it is an OCCUPATION, you idiot fcuk Bush-bootlickers!
April 10th, 2008 at 11:53 amBUSH: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.
****************************************************
Given how many things Bush has said over the past six-odd years which have been proven to be highly inaccurate at best if not outright falsehoods, it seems to me that anyone who actually believes this needs to have their head examined. Considering just how dependent on oil the US is and considering that Iraq has one of the world’s five largest proven oil reserves, it’s highly unlikely in the extreme that we’re ever going to withdraw our military forces from the country in he foreseeable future even if you leave out Peak Oil as a potential factor in the equation — the Iraqi oil reserves were almost certainly one reason, if not the primary reason, why we sent troops into Iraq in the first place. Why would the Bush administration have sunk so much money into the military bases and into the massive embassy which they’ve been building in Iraq if they were willing to leave whenever the Iraqi government told them to?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:59 amThe right continues to speak of “U.S. interests” as if we have any right to use someone else’s country to fulfill them.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:59 amSo, WTF are we doing there?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm#12, Mistress Z, they aren’t shaking hands, they’re holding hands. Big Difference.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pmMcWars Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The right continues to speak of “U.S. interests” as if we have any right to use someone else’s country to fulfill them.
That is not exclusive to the rhetoric of the “Right.” It is a deeply ingrained principle of “official” (if tacit) USer foreign policy since at least the 1840s. The soi disant ‘center,’ and even the alleged left, has collaborated enthusiastically in this design for most of the nation’s history.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pmBTW: al-Maliki is a very fragile vessel in which to repose the hopes for any eventual ’solution’ to the morass of the ICORP in Iraq. I have long thought, and still believe that, if he lives, Chalabi has it in mind to become the next Iraqi USer puppet ’strongman.’ He would get the enthusiastic endorsement and support of the WHOLE USer ‘establishment.’
April 10th, 2008 at 12:12 pmMcWars Says:
The right continues to speak of “U.S. interests” as if we have any right to use someone else’s country to fulfill them.
Very true.
I think the arguement that we should “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” is a similarly moraly bankrupt arguement. If this is truely just between us and Al’Qaida then can we really call it a moral act to fight that war in someone elses backyard so that their women and children get killed in the crossfire instead of our own?
Now, of course none of us really want that war fought here. I sure don’t! But I’m also of the belief that we are activily fueling this ‘war’ between us and AQ and it never really needed to happen at all.
Also, I think that entire arguement is a false dichotomy. If Homeland Security did their jobs right then there is no way the same numbers of AQ would be able to get into this country as are able to get into Iraq. It also been shown that only 5% of the violence in that country is caused by AQ. the rest of it is just a civil war that we’re policing.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pmSo why are we trying so hard to stay? Ulterior motive> Chevron?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:23 pmThe leader of the occupied nation would like the occupiers to leave?! What a shocker.
We just need to work hard. Train and arm the Iraqi army at fabulous expense. And eventually, the Iraqi army will be able to expel the occupiers.
That will be a proud day for America. Mission accomplished.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pmSo?
If the little guy with the swagger and smirk and fragile ego won’t listen to the 75% of Americans who think, why should he listen to some cheesy propped up puppet?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pmMaliki will invite Ahmadinajad over, as SOON as American leaves. Chimp knows this, and so will keep up the pretense of surges and pauses until January 2009 when the criminal investigation of this absurdist administration begins.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pmGreat assessment, DigDug.
Indeed, if this administration had no intent to protract this conflict and keep it to the point, they would have allowed then-BGen Mattis’ task force to surround Tora Bora. But, by denying his request and invading Iraq, they lured Al-Qaeda to different regions to impose themselves on other innocent people.
Containment works. We’ve known for years why this administration didn’t want to keep it down to size. Their obsession with oil and privatizing overlooks the dangers of creating new terrorists.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pmIndeed, if this administration had no intent to protract this conflict and keep it to the point, they would have allowed then-BGen Mattis’ task force to surround Tora Bora. But, by denying his request and invading Iraq, they lured Al-Qaeda to different regions to impose themselves on other innocent people.
Exactly. It could have been ended in Tora Bora. Mostly.
But instead, they allowed OBL to slip away into pakistan where he could establish a new base and rebuild is organization. And then we further inflamed things by invading Iraq. Which became a powerful new recruiting tool for AQ, further swelling their ranks and becoming a new powerful base for AQ in addition to the base OBL had rebuilt in Pakistan.
Nearly everything this administration has done in the last 7 years has made AQ more powerful and more of a threat to us.
Now were told we have to stay in Iraq so we can be safe… and fight AQ…
I somehow doubt that even if we did ‘win’ in Iraq, that wouldn’t mean the end of AQ, or the threat that they now represent.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pmtrolls, trolls, where are you on this one?
April 10th, 2008 at 1:10 pmOk, so not Maliki thinks we should leave, the Iraqi parliament thinks we should leave and the Iraqi people think we should leave. So what will his excuse be for the continued occupation of Iraq? Will he say that they are just children and don’t know what is best for their country?
April 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pmNo matter what the radio talking heads say, DigDug, a win in Iraq is not a win for the United States. There’s no gain from that investment — only guaranteed obligations. Screwing up is very expensive. A worthy conflict, in fact, happens to be a cost effective one. If the invasion was worth something we wouldn’t be looking at these kinds of numbers — in terms of casualties, in terms of injuries, and in terms of deficits.
Al-Qaeda is getting mostly what is wants out of 9/11, yet we’re the “defeatocrats” and “loonie left-wing bloggers”
No, we’re the strategists. The rest of ‘em are knee-jerk warmongers.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pmgummitch Says:
Our local RightWing propagandist for the Oregonian newspaper was mocking Democrats this morning for suggesting that they had a different version of “progress” than Petraeus offered…
Why do you read that rag “the Oregonian”? I took that rag paper for about a month, along with the Corvallis Gazette Times and gave up my subscription after a couple of months. Neither paper reported what was important and their letters to the editor and editorials were skewed right.
Actually, I started and stopped the Gazette Times three times. I sort of wanted my local news but eventually couldn’t put up with the rightward slant of the newspaper. A funny thing happened after my third quit. The editor of the newspaper actually called me to ask why I had started then stopped the newspaper three times. I told him it was because the newspaper did not report the important news and it was slanted right with its editorials and letters printed. He actually told me that they print EVERY letter they get so if they are slanted right, it’s because Corvallis is slanted right. I reminded him that I had submitted several letters to the editor that had never been printed and that Corvallis is decidedly left in it’s political leanings. I concluded with the thought that maybe the problem was that no self-respecting Democrat would be caught dead subscribing to their newspaper.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pmThe Burning Bush
Blistered souls float scattered about,
adrift on a sea of pain.
Crimson waves of death crest near,
as The Decider lies in vain.
Fear the horde, no, the other horde,
he plies throughout the land.
As our children’s children disintegrate,
perhaps an eye, or yet a hand.
He says he guards our very lives,
the existence of civilized man.
But in the alleys of ancient Baghdad,
America’s Best wish he’d share his plan.
Vacant cries of “who could have known?”,
amidst the pyres of World Trade.
Lay bare the myth of his compassion,
“My Pet Goat”, his cowardly shade.
Proxy war and proxy dead,
to The Shrub it matters not.
Provided Dick can exercise Options,
as long as Haliburton stays red-hot.
Treasure bled in flesh and gold,
across dunes of soulless oil.
Simmering cauldrons of historic hate,
churned to a gently rolling boil.
The Burning Bush admits no errors,
nor the ditch into which we’ve steered.
Back into the breach he madly proclaims,
after all, “you volunteered”
RJF
April 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pmIf we are in Iraq by invitation, we garnered that invite at gunpoint.
-AF
April 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
I somehow doubt that even if we did ‘win’ in Iraq, that wouldn’t mean the end of AQ, or the threat that they now represent.
Of course it wouldn’t. Our government says there are maybe 1,000 AQ in Iraq (if that). When we leave the people of Iraq will kick their butts out of their country. So, if they really are AQ (which I doubt), they will just join Osama & his followers in Pakistan where they are being protected by Musharuff. I’m betting that there are at least twice as many real AQ out there since Bush invaded Iraq. Bush gave them a perfect recruiting ground. Good job Bush!
April 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pmMaliki will invite Ahmadinajad over, as SOON as American leaves. Chimp knows this, and so will keep up the pretense of surges and pauses until January 2009 when the criminal investigation of this absurdist administration begins.
And after a time where they can blame anything that goes wrong with the evacuation of our troops on President Obama. Then they will say that the Democrats “lost” the war, even though there is no way to lose an occupation.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pmMcWars Says:
The right continues to speak of “U.S. interests” as if we have any right to use someone else’s country to fulfill them.
Unfortunately it isn’t just the right who says and thinks that. I have heard both Obama and Clinton say they will leave some troops in Iraq to “protect American interests”. I would like to know what interests that would be. Would it be the embassy we built with foreign labor on land we appropriated from the Iraqis, or maybe the permanent bases, again built with foreign labor on land we appropriated from the Iraqi’s. I’m kind of thinking that the Iraqi’s may want to have their land back and may not agree that those facilities belong to America. Then again, they may be referring to the Iraqi oil as “American interests”. I certainly hope that is not the case with Obama and Clinton. I know that’s the case with McBush.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pmBush refuses to pull out. Vows to surge until he splurges.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pmHuh. Our little puppet Maliki had better STFU and toe the party line — or he just might end up in a ditch with a bullet in his head…killed by “insurgents” and/or “extremists being trained in Iran”…
April 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm“…have heard both Obama and Clinton say they will leave some troops in Iraq to ‘protect American interests’.”
Me too, by heaven! Every time I hear it I am helpless to do other than yell at a Tv that can’t hear me, gosh dammit!
Also, “Fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.”
Will NO ONE ever respond to that?
I know what let’s do. Have our recession in Portugal, so we don’t have to have it here. If Portugal doesn’t “like it” that is irrelevant when measured against how much we DO like it, and what it protects us from.
After all, we can do whatever the fk we want. THAT much is totally obvious.
The candidates who will clear out of Iraq were eliminated early in the “democratic nomination process,” and it couldn’t have been done without us.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pmFree Iraq.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pmWhy would bush(aka Edgar Bergen) care or even listen to what Maliki(aka Charlie McCarthy) wants for his country? bush is only interested in himself and his….ahem….rich cronies. No one else. Not the Iraqis and certainly not Americans. bush makes a lousy human, the perfect picture boy for abortion.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am