If we reject those demands, then we are, simply, occupiers.

I think we already are, simply, occupiers, and have been for some time. This will simply make us *officially* occupiers.

Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in Baghdad on Wednesday that a U.S. pullout could be completed in several years. "It can be 2011 or 2012," he said. "We don't have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

I notice that Obama's 16 months is not one of the preferred options.

Ayahtollah Sistani holds the only hand that will prevail on 'full' sovereignty and a timetable - and we have only strong hints on what that position will finally be, and it is likely not the Bush/Cheney/McShame position.

Bush will NOT agree to even a vague timetable because it would repudiate everything he's said for years (and make less likely whatever Bush/Cheney have had as their real motive in all this from the beginning.) Sistani will NOT agree to no timetable and less than full sovereignty, and the expiration of the UN resolution authorizing occupation at the end of the year gives him a strong hand.

Best course for Iraq and US: no agreement this year with probably an expiration or 90-180 day extension of the UN resolution, and work something out with the next administration (presumably Obama).

McCain is fucked on this issue. He can only argue against the Iraqi sovereignty/timetable matter by saying we will play our Empire card (refuse to leave), and the public here and there won't tolerate that. There is NO goodwill to be tapped by Bush/Cheney/McCain/Maliki.

Jim,

While I agree with much of what you say, I would add that Sadr's position on 'full' sovereignty is of potentially greater importance.

Whereas Sistani commands great respect and his voice acts as barometer for what will be done, Sadr has generally shown that he can mobilize the sentiment beyond Sistani's decree.

And more ominously, it seems Sadr is gearing up to be a greater electoral force this go around and use that as a springboard to vanquish the occupation.

Sistani is important, but do not ignore the movement of Sadr, since he commands the support of the poor Shia who are most likely to take up arms and expel the occupation.

I notice that Obama's 16 months is not one of the preferred options.

The years he mentioned are simply examples. The crux is whether the US insists on keeping the occupation open ended or not. Setting any timetable for withdrawal is the preferred option, which flies in the face of current US policy.

but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

You’re interpreting this statement too simply, and stretching it to fit your own anti-McCain bias.

Unless the translator is wretched, it doesn’t say that, “[They] need to agree on a deadline.” Rather, they want to agree on the principle of “setting a deadline,” concluding that, in fact, a tentative deadline would be a wise move. The equivocation here is too problematic to gloss over; it shows that this Iraqi government spokesperson is either verbose or hedging his political bets.

In other words, flexibility and a sense of principle is more important than firm deadlines -- and isn't that McCain's position to a T, if not Obama's as well?

Are you questioning Sen. McCain's integrity?

When Obama wanted the nomination and the support of the base, it was 16 months. He said he would implement this plan on his first day of presidency.

Now that he has cinched the nomination for his party, things changed.....that's what it's all about....change....change that you can believe in. I believe in it....I think he changes.

. The crux is whether the US insists on keeping the occupation open ended or not. Setting any timetable for withdrawal is the preferred option, which flies in the face of current US policy.

Setting any timetable is not the preferred option. The Iraqis do not want a timetable that does not take into account the stability of their country.
They certainly did not want a time table that would have the troops out by now, which was Obama's original rhetoric in the Senate.

The point is, if this comment by Iraq is a problem for McCain, it is at least equally a problem for Obama. What the Iraqis do not want, above all, is chaos from a poorly timed withdrawal.

And since Obama wants a withdrawal and McCain does not, it seems that it is McCain, not Obama, who will have a serious problem with the Iraqi government, whose policies will be considered hostile to the people that the Iraqi politicians represent.

And since Obama wants a withdrawal and McCain does not

Tyro- where do you get the idea that McCain does not want withdrawal?

kaybeel: Maybe the whole "100 years" thing? Or the way he keeps saying that US forces can't and won't leave Iraq until the country's stable, ignoring the fact that the biggest single cause of instability there (and the chief reason why the Iraqi government lacks legitimacy in the eyes of its own people) is the US occupation.

kaybeel:"where do you get the idea that McCain does not want withdrawal?"

LOL

If your point was to demonstrate the idiocy of many of the flip-flopping accusations, then you have achieved your point.

Did you even bother reading the article that Ackerman links to as his "evidence" of flip-flopping? If not, you should. Here is what the McCain camp says:

"If there is an agreement between sovereign governments, [McCain] said he would be open to it. But Sen. McCain has never advocated the case for long-term bases in Iraq for 100 years."

Obama has advocated for phased withdrawal based on....still waiting. McCain has rejected arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and is clearly open to withdrawal based upon the wishes of the Iraqi government. So his "flip flop" was him basically stating what he has been for some time. A timetable for withdrawal based upon the agreement of the Iraqi government is different than a timetable based upon the wishes of the Obama campaign.

Knowledgeable people (Greenspan, e.g., and Ted Kopel in last night's Charlie Rose show) have now declared that Iraq was about oil after all. I think McCain's strategy is to wait for a certain threshold of paranoia to be crossed before declaring that US troops in sufficient numbers need to be stationed in Iraq indefinitely to insure the free flow of oil through the straits of Hormuz.

Yeah, Germany, S Korea, and Japan are all known for their tremendous reserves. Good thing we're still there!

Amazing what a lousy campaign McBush has run, and yet he could still win this thing. The staff shake ups are bad enough, and at least two dozen pretty bad public gaffes and senior moments, and he is solidly cornered into some pretty terrible policy positions, but there he is, the guy that even George W. Bush easily beat off 8 years ago, a contender.