Bush Not Sold on al-Maliki's Prediction

The Yankee

The New Yawker
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
19,467
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Surprised this hasn't come up already, but this is interesting.

New York Times

Bush Wary on Hopes of Iraqi Timetable for Control

By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 9 — President Bush sought today to dampen any expectation that the new Iraqi government will soon be able to provide security for itself and the Iraqi people and thus allow American troops to come home.

While saying that he is "thrilled" that the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "a man with a lot of blood on his hands," has been eliminated, the president stopped short of endorsing a recent statement by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Iraqi forces will be able to control their country within 18 months.

Asked at a news conference with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark at Camp David, Md., whether he thought Mr. al-Maliki's timetable was realistic, Mr. Bush began by saying, "Yeah, I, I think it is." Then he added, "We'll get a realistic appraisal about the capacity for standing up Iraqi troops as this new government begins to function as a government," the president said.

"Once we make those assessments," Mr. Bush went on, "I'll be able to give the American people a better feel for what stand up, stand down means." The president has said repeatedly that as more and more Iraqi forces can "stand up," United States forces can stand down.

Mr. al-Maliki made his 18-month prediction in a meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen last month in Baghdad. But the fledgling Iraqi government took longer to fall into place than had been expected (the Parliament finally approved new ministers of defense, interior and national security on Thursday), and the delay has fueled speculation within the Bush administration and at the Pentagon that bringing American troops home will take longer than many had hoped.

Mr. Bush and the Danish leader touched upon several other topics in a wide-ranging question-and-answer session. They prodded Iran to accept a package of incentives in return for dropping any aspirations to have nuclear weapons, with Mr. Ramussen saying it was "up to the Iranians to take advantage of this window of opportunity."

The prime minister said he and Mr. Bush agreed that abuses like those that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were damaging to the campaign in Iraq and corrosive to the values of free nations, and that accusations surrounding the deaths of civilians at Haditha need to be investigated fully. And Mr. Bush praised the Danes for their contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denmark, with a population of about 5.5 million, has sent hundreds of troops to both war zones.

Earlier this year, after the Iraqi elections in January, some administration and military officials had hoped to reduce American troop strength in Iraq, now about 130,000, to 100,000 by the end of the year. Bush aides whose duties include political calculations had hoped that significant cutbacks could be under way by summer, in time to make an impression on the public before the November Congressional elections.

The president himself has said again and again that to set a formal timetable for pulling out of Iraq would be unwise. He steered clear today of anything close to a timetable, saying that troops would come home "as soon as possible."

"This is a brand-new democracy," Mr. Bush said. "And we have to be patient here as this new democracy begins to flourish and, has to deal with people like Zarqawi, who's trying to stop their advance."

Elaborating on what he meant by "as soon as possible," the president sketched his vision of "victory" in Iraq as "a country that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself. That's the definition of victory, and we're making progress toward that goal."

A two-day war-strategy session will begin at Camp David on Monday, with senior American commanders in Iraq participating by video link. But the president sent a strong signal that he thinks more hard work, and bloodshed, lie ahead. He said the session would "discuss the way forward in Iraq" and "analyze the new government" to determine what "their blueprint for the future looks like, and to figure out how we can help."

"Removing Zarqawi is a major blow to Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush said. "It's not going to end the war, it's certainly not going to end the violence, but it's going to help a lot."

Alright, a lot of the article contained more comments on the Zarqawi death, but the interesting part is that we actually have the beginnings of a timetable from the new Iraqi Prime Minister. However, rather than using it as another "good news" story, President Bush is rather cool on the idea of finishing up by New Years' Day 2008. If anything, that would help his party as the presidential primary season kicks off.

So I'm curious why President Bush is overruling al-Maliki's prediction. He said it was realistic, but then tried to back out of it with the following comments, which is interesting, to say the least. Even if it were not a "good news" story, wouldn't it suggest that the Iraqi government might want the Americans (and others) out by 2008?
 
Sounds like Dubya is more prudent with his words after his "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring it on" comments. Good news I guess.
Also:
...the fledgling Iraqi government took longer to fall into place than had been expected (the Parliament finally approved new ministers of defense, interior and national security on Thursday), and the delay has fueled speculation within the Bush administration and at the Pentagon that bringing American troops home will take longer than many had hoped...
Speculations for speculations, if this is right, it could explain W's standpoint.
 
I don't think he was "dampening the expectation" as Mr. Stout says. If that were the case, he wouldn't have said he thinks the estimate is realistic.

I think it's just an aversion to appearing to commit to a timetable.
 
I suspect he didn't want to commit to a timetable because when the exit day passed and there were still American troops in Iraq, he didn't want people to say "just another Bush screw up, the boy has no concept of reality."
 
So why did al-Maliki come up with a vague timetable? Is this a gentle nudge that we should get out of there sometime this decade or does this new government think there is a good chance of Iraq being self-sustaining by then?
 
Looks like Bush is getting some common-sense and caution. Let's hope he keeps it up.
 
Bush has learned his lesson that unbridled optimism and unrealistic expectations have all too often in the past made him look like either a liar or an idiot or both when they did not work out.
 
I dont expect bush to be sold on anything. the only thing he listens to is "the will of god" and his stupid neocon cronies.
 
Back
Top Bottom