I'm pleased to see this Diary. Bush and McCain do not want to leave even when our hosts are asking us to. Why would they want to stay? WMD? OIL?......

Just in the last couple of weeks we had their foreign minister sent by al- malaki to request behind doors that we not pull out. He did to both Barack and McCain.

I don't if malaki is just showboating in public for his people back in Iraq.

I just don't know.

Thats a lot of political posturing by Maliki , that much should be clear .

Obama is all over the map on Iraq , its hard to grant him much credibility on it as far as I am concerned.

To add to that McCain's position is very clear he wants to stay in Iraq until we are recognized as the victors. He will never "surrender"

Iraq wants a timetable.

Why can't ++++WE++++ have a timetable?

And let's not just address that question to Bush, because we can guess his answer.  We need to ask that of the rest of Democrats in Congress that have resisted the word timetable so hard because they can, feared that they would look "weak."  There is no more excuse.

McCain has made it clear -- he's not leaving until he can declare "victory" regardless of the cost.  Obama has made it clear -- the cost of the war in lives, suffering and to our economy is unacceptable.

It is ridiculous to think we can hold President Obama strictly to anything but commitment to his intent to end our involvement in Iraq as quickly as possible.  What that looks like depends on any number of factors -- conditions on the ground six months from now, what dumb stunts Bush may pull between now and then, how the Iraqi government responds in anticipation of a change in our administration.

Obama has made two things clear -- our troops must be withdrawn in the safest manner possible and our continued involvement there cannot be sustained.  Beyond that, I am delighted to see he intends to listen to the folks on the ground as to how to best achieve the goals he has campaigned on.

Dday over at Digby's blog has a much more nuanced position on Maliki's call for a timetable:

Nouri al-Maliki is trying to win an election. He wants to outflank the Sadrists who have been resisting the US occupation for some time. There have been massive demonstrations among the Shiite community to drive the occupiers out. It's significant that the NSA, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, made his comments in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, and after discussions with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, no less.

But the actual withdrawal proposal put forth by Maliki and the Iraqi government is far less than it seems.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

That's the key. This is a positioning document for al-Maliki, who wants to consolidate control in provincial elections. He's trying to prove that his rule has been successful and that he is not a puppet to the Americans. The other day he said that terrorism has been defeated in Iraq - it was his "Mission Accomplished" statement - as proof that he has been able to increase security all by himself.

The practical effect of the agreement described above is negligible. We've only handed over security responsibility in 9 of the 18 provinces to date. There's enough flexibility in this statement to hold off withdrawing all combat troops for potentially up to a decade. And 10 years is a long time and lots of things can change. This is an election-year "peace is at hand" statement that Maliki can wave around to the Iraqi public.

Some Context For The Iraq Timetable Remarks

If Obama wins the general, the timetable which probably makes the most sense is the following: 1) announce that the US will be out of Iraq completely by 2012;  2) don't announce a timetable for withdrawal right away;  3) invest political capital and resources to ensure that Iraq's national election takes place at the end of 2009 as scheduled;  4) once a new Iraqi government is formed (and it's not clear that Maliki will be at the top of it) negotiate a fast exit (ie. 2 brigades a month);  5) the last US troops would leave Iraq at the end of 2010.

Withdraw any faster, and these Iraqi elections will probably never take place (and the result of that would likely be civil war or some sort of dictatorship).  Withdraw any slower and the US would probably never leave.  

And what's vexing is that many Dems who are strongly anti-war probably would consider the above policy to be some sort of betrayal, because Obama wouldn't be withdrawing all US troops as fast as possible.  

And, well, they're idiots.  Civil war in Iraq probably means a large war in the region, period.  Who thinks that wouldn't involve US troops on a larger scale than is occurring now?  

The situation dictates the timetable, but this national election in Iraq gives the US a perfect opportunity (one which McCain wouldn't take, because he thinks if the US has long-term bases in Iraq that would enhance its strategic position).