Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has called the U.S. departure from Iraqi cities a great victory for Iraq. The pullout was mandated in an agreement signed by the Bush administration last year. U.S. combat forces must leave urban centers by June 30, and all American troops are required to be out of Iraq by 2012.
“It is a great victory for Iraqis as we are going to take our first step toward ending the foreign presence in Iraq,” Maliki said…
On Tuesday, the Iraqi government declared a national holiday to mark the occasion.
Actually, “extremely small” contingents of U.S. combat troops will be staying in Iraqi cities after the deadline, according to Brigadier General Steve Lanza, spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq.
It seemed that the Bush administration denied reality almost to the last, or anyway until after the 2008 election. They ignored the will of the people in America and Iraq as long as they could. A military occupation such as our occupation of Iraq cannot bring “victory” for the occupiers. It can only end in strategic withdrawal.
Related One Utah posts:
Withdrawal Treaty Isn’t ‘Failure’ – Now It’s ‘Victory’ (November 20, 2008)
Iraqi Bottom Line: All U.S. Troops Out! (October 31, 2008)
Bush Sets Iraq ‘Surrender Date’: December 31, 2011 (October 15, 2008)
#1 by cav on June 30, 2009 - 6:46 am
I guess the happy Iraqis really have been fooled by the acres and sprawling acres of camouflaged superbases and embassies scattered around.
They’re practically invisible from here as well.
#2 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2009 - 8:07 am
The “withdrawal” from Baghdad has been accomplished, in part, by redrawing the city limits so that U.S. bases are now outside the city.
#3 by cav on July 3, 2009 - 6:21 am
Wel, now that we’ve ‘won’ in Iraq, it’ll be up to our great great grandchildren to finally settle the score.
This wartime spending has undoubtedly been a major contributor to our present economic collapse. The U.S. has waged an expensive war as if it required little or no economic sacrifice, funding the conflict by massive borrowing. As we’ve observed in the past, you can’t spend $3 trillion on a reckless foreign war and not feel the pain at home. …
Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz have an excellent opinion piece in today’s Los Angeles Times reminding us of the true cost of war, especially one that is fought “off-budget” as the war in Iraq has been and now the one in Afghanistan apparently will be if the $80 billion “emergency” supplemental appropriations measure recently rammed through Congress is any indication.