In Iraq, Americans pull back and Iraqis celebrate
Yesterday, four U.S. troops were killed in an attack in Baghdad; their names have not yet been released.
Today, however, their comrades have all but withdrawn from Iraqi cities, leaving them to be patrolled by Iraqi forces under an agreement signed months ago by American and Iraqi officials. This has been proclaimed “National Sovereignty Day,” a holiday to celebrate the great Iraqi victory. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, acknowledged in a speech that the day could not have happened without the help of the United States.
“While we celebrate this day, we express our thanks and gratitude to our friends in the coalition forces who faced risks and responsibilities and sustained casualties and damage while helping Iraq to get rid from the ugliest dictatorship and during the joint effort to impose security and stability,” Talabani said.
But Iraqi President Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a speech at a military parade deep inside the secure Green Zone, claimed that “the national united government succeeded in putting down the sectarian war that was threatening the unity and the sovereignty of Iraq.” According to the New York Times, Maliki “made no mention of the American military’s involvement in fighting here for the last six years.”
The U.S. troops still in Iraq — at last count roughly 130,000 — will continue to engage in combat. The four dead Monday will not be the last to give their lives. The deadline for withdrawal of American combat forces is Aug. 31, 2010, with total withdrawal set for Dec. 31, 2011.
“As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down,” President Bush used to say. That seems a long time ago. But it’s time, past time, for the promise in those words to finally be realized.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
149 comments Add your comment
GOP is gone
June 30th, 2009
10:19 am
They don’t throw flowers, it is a desert. They throw shoes.
Paul
June 30th, 2009
10:19 am
AmVet?
Disingenuous? I thought I was specifically addressing not the half of Democrats who were not bullied, but the half who were. The half who voted to oppose were obviously not bullied. Many of those who voted for, later became some of the harshest critics when things went badly. That was my point.
TNGelding
Yes. And still, administration spokepersons referred to it as a goal to aspire to.
But really, it’s something Pres Obama inherited. The timetable for withdrawal. I still see major distinctions between Bush’s ‘conditions-based’ approach and Obama’s ‘timeline-based’ approach.
Joey
June 30th, 2009
10:20 am
Thanks Bosch. Your reaction is as expected.
Still, your conclusion is wrong, but your passion is real.
If nothing else that will get you posted on Jay’s blog.
Paul
June 30th, 2009
10:28 am
Copyleft 10:19
True enough. But I am leery of speaking in absolutes. Which is why I refer to “General Principles.” Principles that are generally true, but not necessarily in every condition.
Had the discussion here once before with someone. Idea of development of moral thought. It’s wrong to steal. Your child has a disease, you haven’t the money for the drug, would you steal the drug to save your child’s life?
Stealing’s wrong.
People get rather unsettled when such ideas are then transferred to world actions. The answer I still like the best to all this came from Bosch months back – “Sometimes we do it because we’re bigger and stronger and because we can.” Words to that effect.
Heck, I’ll even offer some people who reverse course on principles when the chips are down have MORE principles than people who stay the course.
That’s why I like ‘general’ principles. Absolutism, whether it’s religious dogma or political pronouncements, leaves me a tad uneasy.
FinnMcCool
June 30th, 2009
10:28 am
WYLD: anyone with half a brain dearly misses President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
That is well said, Wild Bill, well said indeed. I can not refute your claim.
FinnMcCool
June 30th, 2009
10:31 am
Seek, I believe the latest Republican reason for the invasion was to “Rid the world of unnecessary clutter and demolish the forces of the Klingdons in one fell swoop!”
We came, we saw, we swooped!
Paul
June 30th, 2009
10:31 am
Copyleft
Saw a Law and Order episode recently. Cop had responded to a vehicle accident. Car was mangled, person inside trapped. Car was on fire. Person was screaming horribly. Screaming and screaming and screaming. No other help was coming. Cop shot the person as the flesh continued to blister and char.
District Attorney charged the guy with homicide. He broke the law.
See the point?
JT
June 30th, 2009
10:32 am
Everyone is making it a republican or democrat issue. Rgardless of your party or views, let’s not forget our soldiers who bravely risked their lives and fought in the battle. Many of whom probably felt the same as all f you. Let’s give them a true hero’s welcome when they come home. Let them know that we really appreciate their sacrifice. And let us never forget those that gave their lives in Iraq. God Bless America.
Vietnam vet.
Copyleft
June 30th, 2009
10:32 am
Paul: Specific tactics can change depending on conditions or new information; no one’s claiming otherwise.
But underlying principles? They remain the same. If you don’t stick to them, you don’t really have any. You just have a collection of pretty words you use when it suits your convenience. And that sort of “moral flexibility” is seldom deserving of praise.
If you find that a statement such as “Killing is wrong” doesn’t suit every circumstance, it means you haven’t found the TRUE principle, just an approximation of it. It emphatically does NOT mean that killing under any and all circumstances is suddenly acceptable. See the difference?
getalife
June 30th, 2009
10:33 am
Big oil will finally put those record profits to work bidding against China for Iraq oil.
The corruption money will be flowing in Iraq.
Welcome to democracy Iraq.
Bosch
June 30th, 2009
10:33 am
Paul,
You are always gonna get screwed when you attempt to include morals into military actions, or anything else for that matter.
And, as you mentioned, I did write words to that effect, but I don’t necessarily agree with that. Sometimes the best answer to “why do/don’t we act is” – “well, hell, I don’t know!”
Half Brained American
June 30th, 2009
10:34 am
Me like George he a great Preznident! 4 ever.
also eet mor chikn.
FinnMcCool
June 30th, 2009
10:34 am
Don’t worry, I Report, liberals aren’t claiming victory. We aren’t confused and lying to ourselves that maybe, just maybe, there was actually something to win in Iraq in the first place.
You have a lot of Iraqi civilians dead, a lot of Americans dead, a whole country that needs rebuilding…. oh, and let’s not forget, a lot of very very very wealthy military contractors who are smiling all the way to the bank!
md
June 30th, 2009
10:39 am
“Follow UN principles even when the other side doesn’t”
It’s this type of bs that gets our boys killed on a daily basis. Making them fight with one hand behind their back and having to constantly think about the consequences of a court marshal if they make a wrong split second decision.
If that is one’s stance, then maybe you should try picking up a gun and deciding in a matter of milliseconds whether the other guy is really trying to kill you or not. Easy to do from a computer and keyboard, darn near impossible in real life. That poor fellow gets to choose between death and prison, instantaineously.
And the other side, they could care less what the UN says, and relly don’t care who gets killed.
Its war folks, not tiddly winks.
Matilda
June 30th, 2009
10:43 am
JT, nicely put. Thank you.
Copyleft
June 30th, 2009
10:45 am
MD: “Follow UN principles even when the other side doesn’t.
It’s this type of bs that gets our boys killed on a daily basis.”
Actually, MD, it’s this type of principle that separates the good guys from the bad guys. Which side do you want to be on?
Normal
June 30th, 2009
10:48 am
COPYLEFT: Your 10:19…You see with clear eyes, man…Just sayin’…
Normal
June 30th, 2009
10:51 am
JT: 10:32 I guarentee to you that I will do every thing possible to make it happen…As G-d as my witness…
Normal
June 30th, 2009
10:53 am
getalife
June 30th, 2009
10:33 am
Big oil will finally put those record profits to work bidding against China for Iraq oil.
The corruption money will be flowing in Iraq.
Welcome to democracy Iraq.
——————
GETALIFE: Wasn’t this what we were fightin’ for?
Seek and ye shall Find
June 30th, 2009
10:55 am
I wonder if Zapata Petroleum is also bidding.
Paul
June 30th, 2009
10:58 am
Copyleft 10:32
Sure I see the difference. Most of the questions I ask or the way I phrase it is because I’m trying to clarify the position you’ve taken.
But I was speaking of more than tactics. We talk about principles, but life does present us with situations where greater harm can result by adhering to the letter of the law, than by not.
I’m not saying those exceptions to the general happen often, not at all, but happen they do. And that’s the point I’m driving at. And they are likely going to be tough situations with tough calls. Like that Law and Order episode.
Your last paragraph – [[If you find that a statement such as “Killing is wrong” doesn’t suit every circumstance, it means you haven’t found the TRUE principle, just an approximation of it.]]
What is the ‘true principle?”
Our system of laws distinguishes types of killing: murder, premeditated, manslaughter, sanctioned by the state.
[[It emphatically does NOT mean that killing under any and all circumstances is suddenly acceptable.]] Of course it doesn’t mean that. But to go back to the ‘killing’ thing, I’m still a bit fuzzy on the ‘true principle’ meaning.
Sounds similar to what I described as a ‘general principle’ but I’m not positive.
Bosch 10:33
true, too!
getalife
June 30th, 2009
10:58 am
A war of choice based on lies to create wealth for cronies on the death of hundreds of thousands is the ultimate sin.
The cover ups can’t help them in eternity.
Tis a dark place they dwell.
Evil.
md
June 30th, 2009
10:59 am
“Actually, MD, it’s this type of principle that separates the good guys from the bad guys. Which side do you want to be on?”
If I’m over there fighting, I want to be on the alive side.
Maybe you should go over there and when you encounter an Iraqi/other in a dark alley, raise your hand and call “time out” to enquire whether they are a “good” guy or a “bad” guy. If your lucky they will be a “good” guy. If your not lucky, no more posts from you.
Normal
June 30th, 2009
11:01 am
Y”ALL: The talk about the UN got me to thinking…I know..That’s a dangerous thing to do, but…
When did it happen that we became the UN’s police? Why is it always mostly our soldiers cleaning up messes?
If we are going to be the police force of the UN, why not get paid for it? I propose something like this: UN: America, we need you to clean up the current mess is Somila. US: ok, we will do it for 100.00 dollars a day per soldier used, plus expenses, deal? This way we actually gain something and the soldiers do to…simple.
Bosch
June 30th, 2009
11:09 am
Normal @ 11:01 –
I like it! You should write a proposal to the DOD – get a couple millions for that.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 30th, 2009
11:11 am
In 1979, the year before he campaigned for the Republican nomination for president, Bush claimed a nuclear war was winnable. Ronald Reagan won the 1980 nomination and chose Bush as his running mate. As vice president, Bush cast three tie-breaking votes to renew chemical weapons production, supported sale of missiles to “terrorist” Iran and the illegal arming of the Nicaraguan contras and other paramilitary groups he called “freedom fighters. He also chaired The Presidential Task Force on Deregulation which, according to Mary Fricker in her book Inside Job, “set the tone” for bank deregulation which led to the savings and loan financial disaster of the 1980s.
That Bush family. You could always count on them to be there looking out for someone’s best interests.
md
June 30th, 2009
11:11 am
Normal,
Better idea – abolish the UN.
Its become the ultimate our side vs your side and even the “evil” empires get to vote. That would be like letting felons vote in our general elections.
It was a good idea in “principle” only. Not to mention we fund way more than our share and fight the battles.
Paul
June 30th, 2009
11:15 am
CopyLeft
I’ll even toss this out for consideration:
Much has been said, negatively, of Pres Bush. Some allege he wanted to torture. Some go so far as to say he enjoyed it. Some look at one technique (tactic?) and say it’s evidence he’s a torturer.
But consider this: he asked a question: does such and such constitute torture? Some say he did that only to cover his backside. Some say he forced the ‘right’ answer. But consider: could there not have been the acceptance of the principle and the law that the US does not torture? That he wanted to abide by the law, but the law does not describe techniques, so he sought clarification.
Now any time you ask a few lawyers to interpret something you’re going to get different opinions. Just look at the Supreme Court. So Pres Bush asked ‘what about this? Is it torture?’ and got back the answer, ‘no, it isn’t.’
Because he had to maintain the principle, before the world, that we do not torture. Which is why he adamantly maintained ‘we do not torture’ and why he absolutely refused to get into a discussion of ‘what about this? what about this?’
Before you dismiss this, consider: I have asked, even if one accepts waterboarding is torture, is listening to Eminem played loud for 12 hours torture? Is going without sleep for 30 hours torture? Because those were the other techniques included in the legal opinions.
And while people may disagree about different techniques or tactics, they can still say, as a principle, we do not torture.
RW-(the original)
June 30th, 2009
11:17 am
@@,
Thanks for the greeting! As always I proudly share the day with the great Thomas Sowell.
Bosch,
You as well….sort of.
Whether Obama gets any blame should sectarian violence break back out won’t have anything to do with his keeping Bush’s SOFA in force. It’ll be in how he responds and if that response is going to be his usual sit back and wait to see who prevails, then we may as well start evacuating our troops from the country itself, not just the cities.
Copyleft
June 30th, 2009
11:19 am
Paul: What I’m getting at is that the simplistic codes of the “Ten Commandments” style are not true ethical principles… they’re approximations.
“Thou shalt not kill,” for example, would prevent violence in self-defense, in war, the death penalty, suicide, euthanasia, and so forth. Ethically, those circumstances require some deeper digging.
What principle you (or anyone else) ultimately arrives at is up to them and their beliefs.
A pacifist, for example, would declare that even self-defense and war are insufficient grounds for killing by violent action: his true principle would be “Thou shalt not commit violent, intentional murder of a fellow human being under any circumstances.”
A soldier, on the other hand, could have the core principle of “I will not kill my fellow man except in defense of myself or my country.”
A doctor could decide, “I will preserve life whenever it can relieve, end, or reduce suffering” and therefore be okay with patient-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
All of these men have functioning core principles they can stick to. None of them are required to make “special case” exceptions.
When someone uses the phrase “whatever it takes” or “by any means necessary,” it means that the principles they CLAIM to hold are really subordinate to a more urgent and selfish instinct: fear. Their core principle is often a variant of “Keep me alive and safe, at any cost!”
Ethically, I don’t have much respect for that, given how many atrocities and abuses it has historically produced.
clyde
June 30th, 2009
11:23 am
In war it’s whether you win or lose,it’s not about how you play the game.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 30th, 2009
11:26 am
…This highly secret program was known as Project 908, and among the individuals earmarked to take power when disaster struck was Donald Rumsfeld. … There, for several days, he would be immured in artificial caverns, staring at electronic displays streaming data of disaster and confusion, sleeping on cots and subsisting on the most austere rations. …
Insofar as the COG games gave the illusion of reality, they taught Rumsfeld and his fellow players some dangerous lessons, particularly when the fall of the Soviet Union induced some changes in the usual scenarios. Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now customarily replaced by terrorists. The terrorism envisaged however, was almost always state-sponsored. …
There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected to run the “shadow government” had been drawn from across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld found himself in politically congenial company, the players’ roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks. (Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, New York: Scribner, 2007, pp. 85-86, 88)
Those Republicans are a bunch of really sick puppies.
getalife
June 30th, 2009
11:28 am
“GETALIFE: Wasn’t this what we were fightin’ for?”
Ah, the why question.
Well, the oil is an open market in Iraq now.
Wealth has been created for w’s cronies .
The Iran allied Shiites contol Iraqi government.
Only w can answer the why question but he will lie.
So, the answer to the why question will never be known.
@@
June 30th, 2009
11:35 am
I must confess, jay, I don’t always read your columns in their entirety (embedded links). I just finished this one.
When I first read it I thought…makes sense to me. One Iraqi leader reflects back, the other looks forward instilling in the Iraqi people and their security forces a sense of accomplishment and confidence in their future. Democrats rarely bestow that on their voters so it’s easy to see why some would be offended. It’s a foreign concept. Anyhoo…
it’s no wonder the NYTs would salute him with a “‘butt’ Al Maliki”……..
The military parade in the Green Zone on Tuesday — at the official monument to the unknown soldier — was attended primarily by Iraqi reporters and dignitaries. The public could not reach it because of extensive security restricting access to the area. Several American news organizations were also barred, including two television news networks and The New York Times, on the grounds that they did not have the appropriate badges.
This seemed in part intended to signal that the Iraqi authorities were in charge. In the past most checkpoints were run jointly by Iraqis and Americans and if someone lacked the correct badge, an exception could be made.
In his speech, Mr. Maliki said the news media would encourage insurgent attacks if they questioned the ability of the security forces to handle the job.
The truth hurts.
~~~~~~~~~OO~~~~~~~~
You’re welcome RW.
~~~~~~~~OO~~~~~~~~~
Paul: Don’t know if you saw it but I left you a Friedman video on Previous 1.
md
June 30th, 2009
11:35 am
“Well, the oil is an open market in Iraq now.”
I always loved the “oil” argument. If it was all about the oil, wouldn’t we control the entire market considering we do have 130,000 troops on the ground. Why would we share the oil with countries that didn’t back us in the war and also with countries that don’t like us very much?
Common sense dictates it wasn’t “all about the oil”.
Jake
June 30th, 2009
11:36 am
It’s been a good week, Madoff got 150, Michael Jackson went to his just punishment, and the Iraqis have a self-sustaining democracy.
Jake
June 30th, 2009
11:37 am
md – I think it was mostly about the oil. Unfortunately that only meant keeping it flowing, not taking it for ourselves. but weak people, even with a Cheney behind them, can only do so much.
GOP is gone
June 30th, 2009
11:38 am
Damn, and all this time I thought it was tiddly winks
ken
June 30th, 2009
11:38 am
Jay, aren’t Americans being laid off by the thousands more important? You seem to conveniently forget our largest problem.
Paul
June 30th, 2009
11:38 am
Copyleft
[[All of these men have functioning core principles they can stick to. None of them are required to make “special case” exceptions.]]
There goes that absolute ‘none’ again. I’ll offer, and I’d be surprised if some ex-soldiers here would disagree, that “I will not kill my fellow man except in defense of myself or of my country” does not involve special case exceptions.
Maybe you mean anything a soldier does in war is covered. I don’t think you do. But soldiers, I understand, have all sorts of laws and rules and requirements that are written around ‘special case’ exceptions.
I noticed the pacifist principle was absolute. The soldier used the word ‘except.’ The doctor I didn’t get. Maybe it didn’t come out as you intended, but ‘preserve life “whenever it can relieve end or reduce suffering” maybe should have been “preserve life, but I will make a special exception if it will reduce suffering?”
And I will offer, in the case of the pacifist, if it’s a mother who’s out with her daughter and they get assaulted and her daughter begins to get killed while the mother has means at her disposal to permanently stop the criminal…well, you get the point. I’d have a hard time viewing that mother as a real moral person.
Your next to the last paragraph took it to an extreme. I don’t recall saying ‘whatever it takes.’ In fact, I said exceptions would be pretty darn rare. Just like with the soldier. Just like with the doctor. Maybe even with the pacifist mother.
@@
Thank you for the link – I have it open in another tab
GOP is gone
June 30th, 2009
11:39 am
No md, common sense tells you it is ALWAYS about the money.
md
June 30th, 2009
11:52 am
“No md, common sense tells you it is ALWAYS about the money.”
Then why share it with any other country?
RW-(the original)
June 30th, 2009
11:59 am
US: ok, we will do it for 100.00 dollars a day per soldier used, plus expenses, deal?
Considering the US currently pays 22% of the UN’s general costs and 26% of the UN “peacekeeping” budget all that idea would do is guarantee that the US would have to handle everything and we’d be paying ourselves to do it. Brilliant! /sarc
Off to the forest. Enjoy!
AmVet
June 30th, 2009
12:07 pm
Paul, you know me.
You know I hold those Democratic go-alongers-for-expediency as culpable as their more bellicose and even less rational GOP colleagues.
But the irrefutable fact is that this is, was and will always be a REPUBLICAN WAR.
They wanted it. They wailed for it. They lied to get it.
And they are paying the price for it…
socialism is da BOMB
June 30th, 2009
12:09 pm
@9:12am “TO hell with President Bush & Vice President Cheyney,the nation celebrates your disgraceful fall from power and the ongoing hemorrhaging of your party & idealogy”!!! And we the people(sheep) of the State celebrate the rise of Socialism and our Hero/God/King/Leader/etc…..We will follow…….We will follow…..
Paul
June 30th, 2009
12:11 pm
AmVet
Yes, you’ve been pretty darn consistent these many months. And you haven’t cut the go-along Dems any slack.
Unlike many who make all sorts of excuses for them.
Now, if they’ll just ask the same questions of this administration about Afg they asked of Bush about Iraq…………
Normal
June 30th, 2009
12:11 pm
AMVET: They wanted it. They wailed for it. They lied to get it.
And they are paying the price for it…
———–
Brother, if I have my way, they will pay the price for a long, long time.
Normal
June 30th, 2009
12:20 pm
Paul
June 30th, 2009
12:11 pm
—————–
Paul you are right about Afganistan and President Obama needs to end it successfully. The only way that will happen is if/when we get Bin Laden. As a poster said earlier, that is not a conventional military matter, it is an intellegence and S.O.G. matter.
If we get him, the rest of the terrorist organizations are going to know we mean business…finally. They will we fearful of us again.
Bin Laden is the key…
Atlanta Native
June 30th, 2009
12:21 pm
Jay,
Got nothin’ to disagree with you on this one.