So, what does McCain have to say about this? (withdraw related)

[rn79870]

Many of us (Obama supporters) believe that the withdraw of American troops from Iraq needs to be with the blessing of the Iraq people. It's more of a matter of letting them choose their future and accept responsibility for their own security. This trumps the other guys plan to keep us there indefinitely, even up to 1000 years.

Interesting that Obama's plan is favored by the Iraqi people.

(CBS/AP) In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he supported a plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

When asked when he thinks U.S. troops should leave Iraq, al-Maliki told the magazine, "As soon as possible, as far as we are concerned."

He added, "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."

Al-Maliki deferred, however, from offering outright support for Obama's candidacy. "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement," he said. "Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business."

The prime minister, who has spoken of setting a timetable for U.S. withdrawal - an option that has been anathema to the White House - discounted the Bush adminstration's concerns.

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," al-Maliki told Der Spiegel. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al Qaeda and the militias."

The Obama campaign's national security adviser said the Illinois Democrat welcomes al-Maliki's support.

In a statement, Susan Rice said al-Maliki's position "presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility."

"Unless al-Maliki reverses course on this reported remark, his statements should be a major boon for Obama," said CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs. "His seeming endorsement of Obama's troop withdrawal timetable - especially when the candidate is on the ground in the Middle East - could undercut one of John McCain's main rationales for his candidacy - that is, winning the war in Iraq and exiting when events on the ground warrent.

And finally,

"If the Iraqis are pushing the U.S. to leave, it will be hard for McCain to argue we should stay for an indefinate period of time."

I suppose they will try, after all, that's what hawks do. Obama = win/win in this regard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...story

From the same article...Petraeus: Al Qaeda May Be Diverting Fighters From Iraq To Pakistan-Afghan Border

Senior leaders of al Qaeda may be diverting fighters from the war in Iraq to the Afghan frontier area, the top American commander in Iraq told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Gen. David Petraeus also said al Qaeda may be reconsidering Iraq as its highest priority war front.

"There is some intelligence that has picked this up," he said in the interview in his office at the U.S. Embassy along the Tigris River. "It's not solid gold intelligence," he added, stressing that the reliability of the information has not been confirmed.

Petraeus said the information was based on human intelligence, meaning informants.

"There are unsubstantiated rumors and reflections that perhaps some foreign fighters originally intended for Iraq may have gone to the FATA," he said, referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where militants have a secure staging ground for movements into neighboring Afghanistan.

Petraeus said that until now, al Qaeda communications have made clear that Iraq is its highest priority for battle. "That could be under review."

That may well explain the republican "were winning because violence is down" theory.

[smockers83]

Lets try 100 years, not 1000. Plus, these troops wouldn't be there in a combat role for 100 years. We're still in Europe and Japan in non-combatant roles. If he really wanted to be in combat indefinitely, even if it was 100 years, he would obviously not become the next president and we wouldn't have the race we have today. One has to look beyond what we're doing in the current situation and look into the roles we'll play in the future.

My question is, do the Iraqi people want us to leave or is it just the leaders? Leaders, to me, tend to have a strong sense of pride, especially when things just begin to right. I feel that's what's happening with Maliki right now.

As for your suggestion on the theory of the surge working, its just a shift of the same war to a different front. If you were fighting a force and that force brought in significantly more forces, would you continue to fight on that front or would you find a weaker front? The reasonable, logical, smart man would find the weaker front. This is seen in all wars. Now we just need to bolster up Afghanistan for a little bit, start a policy of containment, and we're set. Then we can start bringing troops home.

[rn79870]

Lets try 100 years, not 1000.

No thanks, we need to listen to the people we keep trying to save.

My question is, do the Iraqi people want us to leave or is it just the leaders?

Yes, to the point that 43% of them (the Iraqi people) in a poll thought IEDs were an appropriate response to US presence in Iraq.

As for your suggestion on the theory of the surge working, its just a shift of the same war to a different front. If you were fighting a force and that force brought in significantly more forces, would you continue to fight on that front or would you find a weaker front? The reasonable, logical, smart man would find the weaker front. This is seen in all wars. Now we just need to bolster up Afghanistan for a little bit, start a policy of containment, and we're set. Then we can start bringing troops home.

I think that if you looked at Obama's plan, and McCain's plan, you'd see that you were in the Obama camp in this regard. Obama just touched on that on Face the Nation this morning.

[smockers83]

I think that if you looked at Obama's plan, and McCain's plan, you'd see that you were in the Obama camp in this regard. Obama just touched on that on Face the Nation this morning.

So you're agreeing we need "a surge" in Afghanistan, too? This also goes against leaving Iraq--which started out for Obama as by 2009 and is now 16 months with options--because in order for this to work, we have to make sure that it really is ok for us to leave, not that we just scared them off for awhile. That means strong government, military, and people. Just because they're gone now and things are good for now doesn't mean anything. For what you quoted me, I think Obama is in my camp on this one. I've been advocating containment policies for I don't even remember how long, before he decided to run that's for sure.

No thanks, we need to listen to the people we keep trying to save.

No, no we don't. I'll listen to a leader on how long we'll be there for since they're in control. 1000 years as told by a soldier is laughable. Soldiers that do say 1000 years, it just goes to show morale levels.

Quote »Yes, to the point that 43% of them (the Iraqi people) in a poll thought IEDs were an appropriate response to US presence in Iraq.[/quote]To tickle my own curiosity, could you find this poll for me or the first article this statistic was quoted in? I'm interested in a few aspects of it and I'm not really sure what I'm looking for (a quick Google search didn't turn anything up for me).

[rn79870]

So you're agreeing we need "a surge" in Afghanistan, too? This also goes against leaving Iraq--which started out for Obama as by 2009 and is now 16 months with options--because in order for this to work, we have to make sure that it really is ok for us to leave, not that we just scared them off for awhile. That means strong government, military, and people. Just because they're gone now and things are good for now doesn't mean anything. For what you quoted me, I think Obama is in my camp on this one. I've been advocating containment policies for I don't even remember how long, before he decided to run that's for sure.

Look at a map. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries, two different issues. I've always been one calling for bin Laden's demise. If they have to wahk through Afghanistan to do it, I'll back it all the way.

No, no we don't. I'll listen to a leader on how long we'll be there for since they're in control. 1000 years as told by a soldier is laughable. Soldiers that do say 1000 years, it just goes to show morale levels.

The 1000 year statement was by McCain. Part of the problem with America is we think we can invade a country and then, as you say "be in control." We really need to be a partner of the people we "save" not their masters.

To tickle my own curiosity, could you find this poll for me or the first article this statistic was quoted in? I'm interested in a few aspects of it and I'm not really sure what I'm looking for (a quick Google search didn't turn anything up for me).

It's in one of the other recent posts on this forum.

[smockers83]

What's the point of looking at a map and what's the point you're trying to make here? They aren't different issues, they are the same war, just in different theaters. Its the War on Terrorism, aka the War against al-Qaeda. WWII was fought on 4 different continents if one looks at a map or just knows history. That could make it 4 different issues. Or we could count all the countries involved and see how many issues we have. You tell me.

The original quote was he was comfortable with 100 years (we're nearing 100 years in Europe with no end in sight, so what's the difference? Why aren't we taking issue with that as well? Its the same type of thing.), to continue that to 1,000 and 10,000 years afterwards was to prove a point, not necessarily a policy statement. I never said we would be in control. What I said was that we need a strong government, military, and people to form.

[rn79870]

What's the point of looking at a map and what's the point you're trying to make here? They aren't different issues, they are the same war, just in different theaters. Its the War on Terrorism, aka the War against al-Qaeda. WWII was fought on 4 different continents if one looks at a map or just knows history. That could make it 4 different issues. Or we could count all the countries involved and see how many issues we have. You tell me.

We're speaking of withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Not the termination of the war on terrorism. bin Laden still needs to be brought to justice. Sadam was a strategic sidetrip that seems to have failed miserably.

The original quote was he was comfortable with 100 years (we're nearing 100 years in Europe with no end in sight, so what's the difference? Why aren't we taking issue with that as well? Its the same type of thing.), to continue that to 1,000 and 10,000 years afterwards was to prove a point, not necessarily a policy statement. I never said we would be in control. What I said was that we need a strong government, military, and people to form.[/QUOTE]

There is a big difference between a country that we have a treaty with, and "lease" space for our military base. In Iraq we sort of invaded under the guise of making the world a safer place, and the Iraqi people are certainly not safer given our presence there.

The 1000 year comment did prove a point. It proved that McCain isn't set on parking the war machine any time soon, and that the taxpayers are going to be footing these costs until you know what freezes over.

[smockers83]

We're speaking of withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Not the termination of the war on terrorism. bin Laden still needs to be brought to justice. Sadam was a strategic sidetrip that seems to have failed miserably.

Then I think you misunderstood me originally or I wasn't clear enough, which led me to misunderstand you. I am neither of the Obama camp or McCain camp on the war, however, the McCain camp is more of what I'm looking for. What I was trying to get at was that the surge pushed al-Qaeda out of Iraq into Afghan. If we put a "surge" in Afghan. while withdrawing troops from Iraq, where is al-Qaeda going to go? Iraq. Then we have to stop the withdrawal and commit troops again. But if we make sure the Iraqi government, military, and people are really in a position to hold their own, then we can become non-combatants while we're there. This means we have to hold our position as is for quite some time. At the minimum, IMO, we would have to wait 16 months after Obama takes office to make sure. Then he can start planning a withdrawal.

Quote »There is a big difference between a country that we have a treaty with, and "lease" space for our military base. In Iraq we sort of invaded under the guise of making the world a safer place, and the Iraqi people are certainly not safer given our presence there. [/quote]We invaded Europe and Japan to make the world a safer place did we not? We went to Europe to "free the world of Nazi tyranny."* We didn't have a treaty with the Axis countries, yet we were still in their countries afterwards and still are. What's your point? Who says we'll be in Iraq for 100, 1000 years in a combat role? That's the problem is that people look at that comment as though us being there means combat. We can make treaties with Iraq, too--they're just as much a country as Japan, Germany, Italy, etc were after WWII.

Quote »The 1000 year comment did prove a point. It proved that McCain isn't set on parking the war machine any time soon, and that the taxpayers are going to be footing these costs until you know what freezes over.[/quote]Again, as I said just above, the problem with talking about this quote with Obama supporters is that they make it seem that we will be in combat for all of those 100 or 1000 years. That just isn't the case and will not be reality when the time comes. I'd be willing to put down money that McCain's goals in Iraq is to accomplish something similar to what we currently have in Europe and Japan for two reasons. 1) McCain is of that era and 2) D.C. is still infatuated with WWII.

*Not sure on the complete accuracy of that quote, but FDR's speeches were about freeing the world of tyranny.

[skylndrftr]

My question is, do the Iraqi people want us to leave or is it just the leaders? Leaders, to me, tend to have a strong sense of pride, especially when things just begin to right. I feel that's what's happening with Maliki right now.

wait a minute...

In the other Iraq threads, its been argued that the people elected Bush and so the people didn't oppose the war. Maliki was elected under an election we setup and oversaw. We brought democracy there are you saying the government doesn't represent the people?

[WDRacing]

We need to get out of Iraq, double the forces in Afghanistan and be done in that theatre as well within two years. A total withdrawal of ALL troops from the middle east in 2 years would be good IMO. When the troops get home, station them at entry/exit points to perform customs patrols and enforce security. Shutdown the Mexican border and enforce it with troops that are now back home where they should be. Protect out country, block off the borders and enforce the laws already in place.

If we get attacked again, like 911, send out the CIA Mercs and figure out where the threat is, just don't ask how they got the info, then destroy ALL life anywhere remotely close by.

It should be considered unsafe to attack America. Let the leaders of other countries know that attacking us ISN'T OK anymore. If we have to go nuclear to drive that point home...fine.

We need to quit screwing around.

[smockers83]

wait a minute...

In the other Iraq threads, its been argued that the people elected Bush and so the people didn't oppose the war. Maliki was elected under an election we setup and oversaw. We brought democracy there are you saying the government doesn't represent the people?

...and our leaders and representatives represent us the way we want them to here in the US? C'mon, seriously? Look at the White House and Congress. When Bush was elected his 2nd term, a lot of people opposed the war. I doubted the war (hadn't opposed it yet), voted Bush. Why? Because Senator Kerry definitely was not the answer. I haven't really seen the argument you talk of, care to point it out please?

Another question has to be asked here as well. In Iraq with this new government, a style of government none of these people have any experience with, do they really know when they have a strong enough government and military to defend themselves. Do they really know when they have a people that have formed the identities needed to have a strong country amongst the people? I tend to think not, that they see that things are going well right now and that they think everything is fine and they can do it themselves. But I personally think they're (both the gov and people, more so the gov) thinking a little prematurely, just a smidge, not a lot though. I am glad that they are starting to think this, it shows progress, but I don't think they are just quite ready. I agree with WD that 2 more years should suffice in our current role and phased out over the latter year into a support force and into a non-combat force at the end of 2 years (he may disagree with how, but I agree on the time frame). If they want us completely out by then, fine. If they want to make a treaty and want us to stay as non-combatants but with strike capabilities for their defense, that's fine with me, too. Its like a little kid learning to ride a bike--he's doing really well for the first time and no longer wants help from Dad, but soon after little Johnny crashes into the garage, only to be helped up by Dad. What am I saying? Let them gain a little more experience of success and let them really understand it, then we're good to go.

[smockers83]

Yes, to the point that 43% of them (the Iraqi people) in a poll thought IEDs were an appropriate response to US presence in Iraq.

It's in one of the other recent posts on this forum.

Took me awhile to find it and then it took me awhile to find it from your source. The poll was from back in 2005. By a few aspects that I was interested, I meant one aspect of it and that was specifically the date in which the poll was taken. Opinions of 2005 does not represent the opinion of today. That poll is no longer valid information.

Here is a more recent poll from March of 2008.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared...8.pdf

[rn79870]

Yes it was a little old. Your find was interesting, but it still reflects a strong dissatisfaction with what has happened in Iraq. That in and of itself amazes me because of all the evil acts we were told were so common under Sadam. Good find Smocky.

This strengthens my point that our success in Iraq should really be success in the eyes of the Iraqi people, not some US military personnel. When the Iraqi people tell us we're done, we're done and it's time to go home.

[audtatious]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/....html

"But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush."

[WDRacing]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/....html

"But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush."

Wait, is this yet ANOTHER lie he's been caught in? How come every time he says anything it's some twisted version of the truth all aimed at telling the public EXACTLY what they want to hear? Yet the public is content to think..."oh...he wouldn't do that"...I can't vote for McCain because he's old and he's in the same party as Bush. Even though anyone with half a brain knows that doesn't crap.

Here's a video that clearly shows that he'll say and do anything to sway voting.

Obama says anything to gain your votes.

It clearly highlights his total lack when it comes to foreign policy. Quit at all costs unless that expression is going to lose me votes in which case I'll flounder like a fish out of water...just like a crooked car salesman. "Oh don't worry about that noise, here check out this stereo system".

I'm sorry Obama, we're not buying it anymore. Take your double dealing behind back to "Law School"...

[audtatious]

Well, Obama didn't say anything as far as I know. The main media pages, other than CNN, are reporting the article that Bob listed above and are not making note of the follow-up CNN article that I posted.

[rn79870]

Brian you're trying that argument that has not worked again. Think of it like this. A really good chess player will respond to a move his opponent makes. A poor chess player will repeat mistaken moves of the past with the hope that this time they may work. Obama seems to be more of the study and respond type than McCain and his I'll do what I've always done approach. Change is good, very good.

[rn79870]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/....html

"But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush."

Intersting that the next two lines were:

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

That's what I call an endorcment of Obama. That's what I call reasonable. I wonder what al-Maliki would say about 1000 years of American presence?

[smockers83]

To me though, this newer poll shows conflicting information. 46% say the security in their neighborhood has gotten better and 36% say its about the same with only 17% saying it has gotten worse. Those same people are almost evenly split into those three categories for the country as a whole. Further, 12a asks who deserves the credit for the improved security as of late in which 26% say the gov and 30% say other, those percentages being the percentage of those who said security in Iraq has improved. The poll effectively includes the various causes that are domestic, so the Other essentially leaves the US. Now it is even more interesting that those 20% of those who thought security was worse in Iraq blame the US, which comes out to only 5.2% who explicitly blame the US. At the same time, 79% have little to no confidence in US forces. Going to question 21, the majority say the US has made conditions worse for each situation listed while just a few questions back only 5.2% thought that. But then again, only 38% of them want us to leave now, the rest want us to stay for some amount of time. Q 23 explicitly asks whether the US has made security worse, 61% say yes, which again is conflicting information, while in Q 24 it asks if the Awakenings have helped, in which 51% say so while back in Q12a, only 8% of those who said security was better in Iraq mentioned the Awakenings as the main reason (not even 3% of the total survey population). They also asked about Basra, where the British left and only 28% said the security situation there was better. In Q34, they are asked about different areas in which the US should aid Iraq and an overwhelming majority say the US should aid Iraq in each area.

This conflicting data obscures the viewpoint of the US and the job we're doing over there. It also goes to show how you can word a question and get certain responses.

[WDRacing]

Brian you're trying that argument that has not worked again. Think of it like this. A really good chess player will respond to a move his opponent makes. A poor chess player will repeat mistaken moves of the past with the hope that this time they may work. Obama seems to be more of the study and respond type than McCain and his I'll do what I've always done approach. Change is good, very good.

See here's the thing with debating against someone that doesn't actually debate with you...like yourself for instance. You simply say random things that don't actually have real viable meaning in order to camouflage the facts that fly in the face of your blind support. Yet rather then disprove them, you just eloquently toss words out in the hope that some of your coolaide will land in our glasses.

I'm not trying the same argument, I'm pointing out over and over that Obama is a floundering say anything salesman. It may LOOK like I'm repeating myself, but that's only because the examples just KEEP ON COMING.

Then you come off with this..."but McCain is just going to do the exact same thing" even though that is something that only exists in YOUR head. He has never said "Hi I'm John McCain, Vote for me because I'm just going to do everything that Bush already did." Yet you'll vomit that up as an argument every time...but it's totally warrantless and unproven.

Sell your coolaide elsewhere buddy...Obama is a fraud at best. If it makes you feel better to say things like, He's a study and respond type of guy...wtf? That's your excuse for his lies...give him time to study so he can come up with an answer that the public wants to hear? Is that it?

No...I think not.

Vote McCain and save the country from being run by a salesman

[audtatious]

That's what I call an endorcment of Obama. That's what I call reasonable. I wonder what al-Maliki would say about 1000 years of American presence?

You feel they would not endorse Obama? Regardless of anything he does have muslim ties which is the big issue in their eyes (No, I'm NOT saying he is mulsim ). Regardless, there is another potential side to al-Maliki's statements and request for pullout. He has an agreed cease fire with Muqtada al-Sadar right now. Muqtada al-Sadar's main issue seems to be the American troops on the ground. Putting in a "quasi-timetable" effectively handcuffs Muqtada al-Sadar and his army as using our presence as a reason to inflict further attacks against Iraqi police/military and US military. I've heard that viewpoint here and there and it makes some sense.

Now, for someone who likes to point to me and say "spin" on a Obama quote, you sure like to follow the same trend with a McCain quote. I've seen the video and exactly what he stated so that's not swaying me. If he did say it in light of forcefully keeping our troops there then I would call him to the table as well. He didn't.

[smockers83]

Brian has a point there.

Here's an issue with Obama that I don't think anyone else has ever mentioned, but it goes with change and what Bob said. Bob said he is of the study and respond type and that he'll change is plan accordingly. Here's the problem with that. In order to have a plan and implement it, you have to have a plan finalized. If you keep studying and responding, it changes your plan and you can't implement your plan. This also causes people to become frustrated as they can't do their work and are frequently told to change what they're doing.

[audtatious]

I run into that all the time in my job. Go in to perform ABC which has a planned outcome of "D" only to have the customer change the projects scope which changes the desired outcome. At that point you have a moving target because the changes that were planned no longer result in a set conclusion. The steps utilized to work towards the new conclusion causes other unexpected issues and your project turns into a reactive process with no truely defined outcome.

[rn79870]

To a point that's right. However, you (a politician) needs to be flexible enough to recognize when something isn't working and "fix it." Same can be said about an approach to something. Changing your mindset about the best approach isn't a fault, it's refreshing change. This is a quality that I hope out next president brings to the Whitehouse, regardless of who wins.

[audtatious]

I don't have a problem with changing ones stance after re-evaluating the situation. Those who cannot will fail. Bush did it with the surge as he seemed against it, probably because he lacked the balls to say "screw you" and go through with it until Peteus stepped in and took over military operations. I do find it interesting that Obama came out with comments on direction for Iraq the week before he was going to visit there to "see for himself". If you already have a path you are going to follow then why stop and ask for directions?

[96Qowner]

Bob, was there ever a time since 2003 when Obama wanted to do anything in Iraq except quit, pull out, redeploy, withdraw, etc? Did his opinion ever change with circumstances on the ground? Was he ever in favor of committing more troops, ala "the Surge"?

Even now that we've finally accomplished something in Iraq - violence down sharply and Iraqi troops in ever more control - has Obama's opinion Changed? It seems now he wants to quit, pull out, redeploy, withdraw, etc, no?

[rn79870]

The point is 96, that the dynamics have changed in Iraq since 2003. The policy of our country has been slow to follow. Obama has offered a plan that is endorsed by the president of Iraq. Obama appears to be the candidate willing to listen to what the Iraqi people want, instead of what we want for them.

If you really think about it, this "change" (that is, giving the citizens a voice in the process) in approach to the middle east situation may go a long way in solving many of the issues we face there. As far as I'm concerned, it's worth a try.

[96Qowner]

I'm not sure you answered, though.

Was there ever a time when Obama didn't want to quit in Iraq? Did his opinion ever Change? You're a strong Obama supporter, so I assumed you'd know.

[audtatious]

Obama has offered a plan that is endorsed by the president of Iraq.

Where is this plan? All I have heard is him stating 16 months and I saw him state March 2008 at one point. He does not have a plan, he has talking points (which change)

If you read my first article quote then I do not believe you can state "endorsed by the president of Iraq" because they said it was taken out of context.

[rn79870]

Where is this plan? All I have heard is him stating 16 months and I saw him state March 2008 at one point. He does not have a plan, he has talking points (which change)

If you read my first article quote then I do not believe you can state "endorsed by the president of Iraq" because they said it was taken out of context.

And al-Maliki's statement "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," is nothing short of an endorcement of Obama's plan. All he left out were the words "Obama's plan."

Here is the plan that al-Miliki endorced Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.