Speaking today at a small and somewhat confusing press interview today, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that it was his belief that the Iraqi government had likely approved of the idea of negotiating an extension of US troops in the nation beyond December.
“My view is that they finally did say yes,” Panetta insisted. Iraqi officials haven’t been nearly so forward about the idea, and many top officials, including Vice President Hashemi, continue to push for a US pullout as a stabilizing move.
Iraqi government spokesmen were quick to reject Panetta’s claim, prompting the Pentagon to insist that Panetta’s comments only reflected internal Iraqi willingness to have discussions about keeping US troops in the nation.
US officials have for months been pushing the Iraqi government to “request” an extension, and eventually Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backed off his rejection and insisted it was up to parliament. Though the Kurdish Alliance appears to be on board, Hashemi’s Iraqiya bloc is likely very split, and the Sadrist Trend is also firmly opposed.
Yea uh, I think they might have approved it or something but hey, it ain't like it really matters whether they did or not. We're staying forever anyway.
You idiots never understood that Maliki was always an American "puppet",the man's not even a "real" islamist like what a lot of people think Muqtada Al-Sadr is.Why else would the Charge of the Knights have occured?US troops are probably never going to leave Iraq for at least a decade IMHO.
You don't make sense. At all.
But you are on the right site. Keep reading and delve into the archives.
In what way do I NOT make sense?
Al-Maliki's just another Pro-American client of ours who just so happens to have a convenient demagogue (Sadr) on his side against Allawi(a political rival he personally detests),however that doesn't mean he's an IRANIAN puppet now like what a lot of people think he is just because he's Shia.Allawi was Shia too,it doesn't mean anything.
My main point is that the man is is no way an IRANIAN puppet like what has been insinuated times before by certain bloggers,but that he's an American client who's ALWAYS been in favor of a semi-permanent US troop presence,it's just that domestic Iraqi politics won't let him and the other former exiles get away with a public agreement Afghanistan style for troops to stay for decades more.So he has to give off these vague ambiguous statements about "training" missions and how the Iraqi government is still in the process of "negotiation" and all the other bullshit.Read what Babakir Zebari said about US troops staying in Iraq at MINIMUM to until 2020.Also read the Order of Battle Reports of the Iraqi Army.There's too much oil in Iraq for the Americans to just leave without an Air Force present at basics IMHO.
Ladies and Gentlemen why do they hate us.
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly. Again
Why
Comments are moderated. If you wish to have them put through, register with Intense Debate.
I wonder if Obama is thinking that they might have been better off leaving Panetta in CIA where he never (rarley) got the chance to stand before the microphones and open his mouth…
Yea I was thinking the same thing. Maybe he and Biden and Hilary are in some sort of weird competition to see which one can embarrass the country the worst.
The current agreement calls for the US to leave. Why not let "well enough" alone? Here's our chance! We can leave without further negotiation!
Surely the US does not have some ulterior motive for pressing the Iraqis to change the agreement?
"Why not let "well enough" alone? Here's our chance! We can leave without further negotiation! "
You can NOT be that naive!