Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Withdrawal?
Picture Credit: Brooks Kraft/Corbis For Time
As US troops were invading Iraq in March 2003, President George Bush announced that “our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.” But long afterwards, large numbers of US troops remain in Iraq and the president has not set a timetable or criteria for withdrawal, saying only that the troops will leave once they “complete the mission.”
In the early months of the occupation, a majority of the US public felt that occupation forces should stay in Iraq to promote democracy and build a new society. But such opinion has steadily eroded. Only a small minority in the US and abroad now think that the occupation has had (or will have) positive results. Pressure for withdrawal has grown for several reasons -- failure to crush the Iraqi resistance, steady withdrawal of coalition members including a large reduction in UK forces, the US army’s inability to meet its recruiting levels because US citizens do not want to serve in Iraq, erosion of the US officer corps as young officers leave the military, high cost of the occupation including its severe impact on the US federal deficit, and finally increasing public opposition as the failure and high cost of the policy becomes apparent.
For these reasons, several high-ranking US military officers have spoken about withdrawal and Congressional opposition to the war has grown. A secret memo surfaced in July 2005, suggesting that Washington may draw down its forces significantly in early 2006. But in February 2007, the US military initiated its “surge” strategy, adding 28,500 troops to the more than 100,000 US forces already in the country. This troop buildup, together with the Pentagon’s construction of bases across Iraq, suggest plans to keep a military contingent there into the future, perhaps permanently, for geo-strategic reasons.
This section explores the many aspects of a US military pull-out from Iraq, and arguments for ending the occupation.
Also see GPF's pages on: Permanent Bases ; Coalition; Resistance and Iraqi Public Opinion
Main Iraq Index
2008 | 2007 | Archive
Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq (September 10 – 11, 2007)
Testifying before US Congress, General David Petraeus recommends that based on “substantial progress” in the security situation in Iraq, troop numbers can be reduced to pre-surge levels by summer 2008. The General says the decline in ‘security incidents’ in Iraq is attributable to Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. The General refuses to set a timeline for further troop reductions past 2008, as "projecting too far in the future … can be misleading and even hazardous.” He warns of the implications of rapid withdrawal of US forces and says a solution to Iraq’s problems requires a long-term effort.2008
Maliki Pushes for Troop Withdrawal Date (August 25, 2008)
Despite ongoing pressure from the Bush administration, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has toughened his stance on a fixed date for the withdrawal of US troops. Mr. Maliki claimed the bilateral security agreement, between Iraq and the US, could not conclude unless it respects the sovereignty of Iraq and guarantees that “no foreign soldiers remain in Iraqi soil after a defined time ceiling.” US officials hope to secure immunity for US soldiers under the agreement, as well as maintain military bases within the country for the unforeseeable future. (New York Times)US Officials Admit Worry over a ‘Difficult’ al-Maliki (August 15, 2008)
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has refused to endorse a bi-lateral agreement that would legitimize a long-term US military presence in Iraq. The Prime Minister has consolidated his powers within the government as well as in relation to armed groups. For example, Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr refused to launch a concerted resistance against US and Iraqi forces in 2007 in order to strengthen al-Maliki’s case against the occupation. Under these new power relations, al-Maliki has become less dependent on the US government and has been able to influence the Status of Forces (SOFA) agreement by demanding a timetable for US military withdrawal. (Inter Press Service)'Pushover' Maliki Stands His Ground (July 30, 2008)
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's demand for a US withdrawal time-plan should not come as a surprise to the Bush administration. In 2006, Maliki called for withdrawal while working on a national reconciliation plan to strengthen the Iraqi forces and gain support from the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, Washington insists that Maliki’s government embrace the idea of a "conditions-based" US troop withdrawal, which will secure a permanent military presence in Iraq. (Asia Times)No to the US-Iraqi Agreement (July 14, 2008)
The US-led invasion of Iraq has destroyed local infrastructure, killed many Iraqis and displaced a large number. In this statement, Iraqi politician Saleh al-Mutlaq rejects a long-term security agreement between the US and Iraq. He states that a US-Iraq agreement can only be agreed when the US respects Iraq’s sovereignty and regards itself as a friend of the Iraqi people and not as a friend of a sectarian government. (Asharq al-Awsat)Maliki Calls for a Withdrawal Timetable (July 7, 2008)
Shifting from his previous position, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouiri al-Maliki demands a timetable for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. US-backed Maliki is under a lot of pressure from the Iraqi people as well as the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI). The Prime Minister also seeks support of Sunni-led neighboring countries such as the United Arab Emirates. His statement challenges US efforts to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq under a broad-based bilateral agreement between the two countries. (Agence Global)Iraq Hints at Delay in US Security Deal (July 3, 2008)
Neither US officials, nor Iraq’s foreign minister, believe that the two countries will reach a full security agreement this year. The negotiations are deadlocked over issues like Iraqi control over US military operations and the right of US soldiers to detain Iraqi suspects. But the two countries have agreed to lift immunity for security companies, like Blackwater USA, subjecting them to prosecution under Iraqi law. The security companies have a history of using excessive force when protecting foreign clients, which became a political issue in 2007, as Blackwater shot 17 Iraqi civilians in Bagdad.(New York Times)Massachusetts Congressmen Want UN to Replace US Soldiers in Iraq (June 26, 2008)
US Congress Members James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt warn that a long-term security agreement between Iraq and the US will lead to endless war and a permanent presence of US forces in the Middle East. Instead, the congress members propose that UN forces should take over in January 2009 and that the US normalize relations with neighboring Syria and seek rapprochement with Iran.(Boston Globe)Hundreds of Shiites Protest US-Iraqi Security Deal (June 20, 2008)
Hundreds of followers of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr protest against the plan of a long term security pact between Iraq and the US, which will provide a legal framework for the presence of US forces after the UN mandate expires. The protesters say that the bi-lateral agreement will humiliate Iraqis, erase their sovereignty and give the occupier the upper hand. The deal has also drawn criticism from other powerful Shiite leaders as well as Sunni politicians.(Associated Press)US Issues Threat to Iraq’s 50bn Dollars Foreign Reserves in Military Deal (June 6, 2008)
The US continues to withhold US$50billion of Iraq’s money, in an attempt to pressure the Iraqi government into accepting a US-Iraqi security agreement. Many Iraqis see the bilateral treaty as a way to prolong the US occupation indefinitely and fear the government will approve the contract in return for marginal concessions. Iraq's financial reserves remain in the US Federal Reserve Bank as a consequence of the international sanctions against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.(Independent)Letter to Congressman Delahunt from Iraqi Parliamentarians (May 29, 2008)
This letter shows that a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians would reject a Security Agreement with the US that fails to provide a specific timetable for a full military withdrawal. Further, the parliamentarians point out that any arrangement, not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power, is unconstitutional and illegal. Thirty-one members of the Iraqi parliament have signed the letter stating, that they will endorse an agreement ending the US intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs.Commander Faces More Doubt in Congressional Hearing (April 9, 2008)
General David Petraeus, the leading US commander in Iraq and Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Iraq, testified before the House Armed Services Committee and two Senate committees that “a major departure from our current engagement [in Iraq] would bring failure.” Despite an admission that the US “has not turned any corners or seen any lights at the end of the tunnel,” both men maintained that troop withdrawals should halt. (International Herald Tribune)Iraq Will Not Be A Qaedistan (March 7, 2008)
The Bush administration emphasizes the power of Al-Qaeda and the possibility of it taking over Iraq as a justification for continuing the occupation. Less powerful than groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda is a “non-territorial global entity which has never tried to implement an Islamic state, even in Afghanistan, where it found sanctuary in 1990s.” The ethnicities of Al-Qaeda members are diverse and fragmented; therefore, Al-Qaeda does not have the local support needed to gain power in Iraq or Afghanistan. (International Herald Tribune)Russian FM Urges Timetable for Foreign Troop Withdrawal from Iraq (January 23, 2008)
This China View article reports that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, stated that the withdrawal of the US-led coalition troops could “calm the situation down,” promote national reconciliation and decrease the mortality rate.2007
US Senate Passes Iraq Funds Bill (December 14, 2007)
The US Senate authorized US$189 billion for the Iraq war, without any mention of a timetable for troop withdrawal, despite this being a key Democratic demand. The bill covers the budget year ending in September 2008. In total, it authorizes US$696 billion for military spending, including US$189 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. (BBC)House Approves Bill Linking War Funds, Troop Withdrawals (November 15, 2007)
The House of Representatives passed a bill that provides US$50 billion to fund the war in Iraq and attaches a timetable for the withdrawal of troops by the end of 2008. The bill prevents the White House from using funds to construct permanent bases in Iraq or assert US control over Iraq’s oil. However, commentators say President Bush will veto the bill. Congressional Democrats claim that the bill responds to the concerns of US citizens about the length and the costs of the war. (Washington Post)Putin Wants US Date to Quit Iraq (October 18, 2007)
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the US is engaged in a “pointless” battle in Iraq and should set a date for withdrawal. In a question and answer session, Putin told the Russian public that while the US can remove a “tyrannical regime … it’s absolutely pointless to fight with a people.” He said the US remains in Iraq with the motivation to control Iraq’s oil reserves. (BBC)Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled (October 15, 2007)
US military officials say that the capture and interrogation of suspected leaders of al-Qaeda In Iraq (AQI) has led to a 60 to 70 percent drop in AQI’s capabilities. The military report demonstrates the Bush administration’s argument that US troops must remain in the region to defeat “the most lethal US adversary in Iraq.” The threat of AQI joins a long list of justifications for the war and for the continued US presence in the country. (Washington Post)Debate on Troop Withdrawals on Hold (October 10, 2007)
Political commentators criticize Democrats in Congress for failing to follow through on the party’s anti-Iraq war stance. The Democrat controlled Congress has produced little in 2007 to reverse the war policy. Instead of legislation that would force troops to withdraw, the Democrats have issued war related bills such as curbing misconduct of contractors. However, the author of this Associated Press article says the party is divided on whether to fund a war they oppose or suffer politically for “refusing to support the troops.”Only a US Withdrawal Will Stop Al Qaeda in Iraq (October 5, 2007)
The US government argues against withdrawal from Iraq on the basis that US forces must stay and defeat “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (AQI). Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland suggest that a timetable for withdrawal is the only way to eliminate AQI. With the US presence, many political groups, such as the Anbar Salvation Front, who attempt to defeat al-Qaeda are seen by Iraqis as collaborating with the occupiers. Public opinion research shows that while all of Iraq’s ethnic groups oppose AQI, half of all Iraqis support the group’s attacks on coalition troops. This suggests that as long as the US stays in the country, AQI will remain there too. (AlterNet)Why We Must Leave Iraq (September 24, 2007)
The Bush administration claims that its surge strategy which introduced 30,000 more troops into Iraq in early 2007 succeeded overall in its aim to secure Baghdad to allow for reconciliation. Yet the humanitarian crisis is worsening, with 2.5 million Iraqi refugees, 2 million internally displaced, limited electricity and other basic services plus economic depression and unemployment, commentators suggest the surge strategy has actually failed. In this Nation article, the author argues that only with complete US withdrawal can international mediation and peacekeeping through the UN take place.Longer Leaves For Troops Blocked (September 20, 2007)
A bill calling for longer leave times for troops serving in Iraq is rejected by Republicans in the US Senate. Commentators suggest the vote signals the Bush administration’s monopoly on Iraqi policy. The Democrats hoped that the bill would receive more bipartisan support as it focuses on troops and their families. Political commentators indicate that no meaningful change of votes or substantial bills shifting Iraq policy will be possible by the end of 2007. (Washington Post)Report Will Not Save US From "Iraq's Swamp" – Iran (September 12, 2007)
A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry says the progress report by General David Petraeus does not reflect the reality that the US is failing in Iraq. While Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki welcomes Petraeus’ recommendation to cut US troops to pre-surge levels, the Iranian government calls for a complete US withdrawal. After three decades of non-communication between the two countries, Tehran and Washington held talks in May 2007 to discuss the security situation in Iraq. However, the US continues to accuse Iran of creating violence in Iraq by arming and training militias. Iran argues the presence of 160,000 US troops is causing the violence in Iraq. (Reuters)The Fakery of General Petraeus: What Iraqis Think About the Surge (September 11, 2007)
In this Counterpunch article, Patrick Cockburn argues that General Petraeus’ report to Congress “manipulates figures and facts to produce a picture of Iraq that is not merely distorted but substantively false.” Commentators question the methodology used by the US military to measure the situation in Iraq. Cockburn suggests the true indicator of violence in Iraq is the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes which has risen from 50,000 to 60,000 per month. Iraqis do not have access to medical treatment;the food rationing system is breaking down and unemployment is at 68 percent.Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout (September 11, 2007)
According to political commentators, the testimony given by General David Petraeus to US Congress is “an anticlimactic outcome of what had been building as a potential turning point in the debate over the war.” In this Washington Postarticle, the authors note comments from Democrat representative Robert Wexler who compared General Petraeus’ testimony to General William Westmoreland’s speech during the Vietnam War. The Democrat asks General Petraeus “how many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave?” Meanwhile, neither the General nor Ambassador Ryan Crocker spoke of Iraqi’s performance on the 18 benchmarks outlined by Congress. This is despite a September 15, 2007 deadline for President George Bush to report to Congress on the success of these benchmarks."Progress" by the Numbers (September 9, 2007)
This TomDispatch article examines the “carefully defined and cherry picked” numbers presented by the US government and General David Petraeus to sell progress in Iraq. The author says marketing tools have been used by the US since before the war. To illustrate the manipulation of numbers, the author presents a comprehensive list of his own alternative numbers - 17 nations withdrawn from the coalition of the willing, US$3 billion cost of the war per week, and 50,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes each month.Global Poll: Majority Wants Troops Out of Iraq Within a Year (September 6, 2007)
According to a BBC World Service poll, the majority of US and international public opinion indicates US forces should leave Iraq within a year. Of the 22 countries surveyed in the poll, 19 of those countries want the US out of Iraq, but few think this will happen. The survey also finds 49 percent believe the US plans to keep permanent military bases in Iraq. Doug Miller, the director of GlobeScan who coordinated the poll, says the majority of global public opinion “is opposed to the Bush administration’s current policy of letting security conditions in Iraq dictate the timing of US troop withdrawal.” (World Public Opinion)Panel Sees More Than a Year Before Iraq Can Handle Security (September 6, 2007)
An independent commission created by US Congress advises that the Iraqi police and military cannot take a leading role in securing Iraq in the foreseeable future. The commission recommends disbanding the Shiite-dominated Iraqi national police citing the 26,000 member force as “incapable” of protecting Iraqi neighborhoods. The report says that while the Iraqi forces improved slightly, they still suffered from “limited operational effectiveness.” Political commentators predict that US President George Bush will use the report to argue that US forces need to stay in Iraq. On the other hand, commentators believe the Democrats will use the findings to argue for resources to be shifted to train Iraqi police and army units so that US troops can withdraw. (New York Times)Salvaging the Possible: Policy Options in Iraq (September 2007)
In this policy paper, the authors suggest that a solution to ending the war in Iraq lies in the lessons learnt from Bosnia, Kosovo, Congo, Somalia, Mozambique and Northern Ireland. They argue that these conflicts demonstrate that “force alone will not translate into sustainable peace.” Only a negotiated settlement between the warring parties, a diplomatic initiative and the leadership of the UN will provide security in the country. See full policy paper. (Foreign Policy)Iraq Poll (September 2007)
According to this poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC and NHK to assess the effects of the US military’s surge strategy, 70 percent of Iraqis believe the strategy has made Iraq’s security situation worse. The poll finds 47 percent of Iraqis want US-led forces to leave Iraq immediately and 34 percent want the troops to leave when the security situation improves. The results of the survey indicate the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development and has not improved security. The findings come as US Commander General David Petraeus prepares to deliver his own assessment of the ‘surge’ strategy to Congress.More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise (August 24, 2007)
The US publicly blames the displacement of Iraqis on ‘sectarian’ violence. But this New York Times article describes how the US surge strategy has caused the number of internally displaced Iraqis to double to 1.1 million since its February 2007 implementation. This is despite the Bush administration’s claim that the troop build-up improves security.The War As We Saw It (August 19, 2007)
In this New York Times opinion piece, seven US soldiers warn against assessing security in Iraq from an “America-centered perspective.” The soldiers are disturbed that the Bush administration portrays the conflict in Iraq as “manageable.” They attribute the lack of basic social and economic conditions in Iraq to the US failure to follow through with its promises. Further, they view Washington’s pressure for political gains on the Iraqi government as futile. The article stresses that the reality of conditions in Iraq is far removed from the “manageable” situation being sold by the Bush administration.An Early Clash Over Iraq Report (August 16, 2007)
Tensions rise in Washington as the US military is preparing its September 2007 report assessing the “progress” made in Iraq since the troop surge. Senior congressional aides suggest the authors of the report, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, may not present the report in Congress or publicly testify before the relevant US Senate committees. Political commentators consider the report as “a make or break assessment of Bush’s war strategy, and one that will come amid rising calls for a drawdown of US forces in Iraq.” (Washington Post)Top General May Propose Pullbacks (August 15, 2007)
US troops may withdraw from al-Anbar province and other areas in Iraq where security has improved. Political analysts expect General David Petraeus to recommend a partial drawdown of troops in his status report to Congress. However, critics of the war suggest that the overall number of US troops will not decrease. Instead, the US will relocate them to other areas of Iraq. The prospects of actual withdrawal are further hindered by President George Bush’s power to interpret the report as he chooses. (Los Angeles Times)US Prepares to Plug Hole Left By British Troops (August 14, 2007)
After Prime Minister Gordon Brown's visit to Washington, British military chiefs say that their troops will withdraw from Southern Iraq. The anticipated departure signals a consensus in the British military that the war is a “lost cause.” (Sunday Telegraph)Iraq's Air 'Straits Question' (August 9, 2007)
As the debate rages over a US withdrawal from Iraq, some speculate that the US will compensate for any drawdown of troops on the ground by asserting permanent control of Iraqi skies. Such a strategy will likely provoke a “struggle for dominance [of Iraq’s air space] which will determine the balance of power in the Middle East for decades to come.” (Agence Global)Anbar "Turnaround" Undercuts War Rationale (August 9, 2007)
The US is increasingly using Sunni militia to fight al Qaeda in Anbar Province. The shift in US military strategy signals a drastic reversal of US policy, which less than a year ago refused “those with ties to the insurgency to gain access to local security organs.” (Inter Press Service)The Withdrawal Follies (July 26, 2007)
The Bush administration often boldly predicts that a high level of chaos will “surely” follow even a partial US troop pullout from Iraq. Such predictions ignore the uncertainty of the future, yet several mainstream media outlets have embraced this reasoning against a full-scale withdrawal. This TomDispatch article dismisses this “future bloodbath of the imagination” as part of a propaganda campaign to maintain a long-term US presence in Iraq.Out of the Shadows (July 19, 2007)
Some resistance leaders in Iraq plan to establish a public profile for the powerful yet largely underground movement. Although sectarian tensions have deepened during the course of the war, various Sunni and Shia insurgent groups share the common objective of ending the US occupation of Iraq. In addition to calling for a complete withdrawal of US forces, the resistance intends to create a political platform “to become an influential voice in a future Iraq.” (Guardian)The Long, Hard Haul from Iraq (July 15, 2007)
This Baltimore Sun article highlights the logistical challenges and the corresponding costs of extricating US military personnel and equipment from Iraq. In light of all the supplies that the US has accumulated over the past four years, experts predict that a withdrawal could be a Herculean task, especially as the road south to Kuwait is increasingly cut by insurgents.The Road Home (July 8, 2007)
Having previously argued against a timetable for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq, the New York Times now calls for an end to the war. This editorial raises important issues about the technical aspects of an exit strategy, urging that it “be based on reality and backed by adequate resources,” unlike the 2003 invasion. Contrary to Bush administration propaganda, a growing number of critics recognize that “staying the course” in Iraq will only generate further violence and bloodshed, and could potentially destabilize the region.Permanent Bases the World Over: Behold the American Empire (June 14, 2007)
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, mainstream media outlets reported very little on the multi-billion dollar construction of US military bases and the massive embassy in Baghdad, essentially ignoring evidence of a permanent US presence in the country. But recently, the media have begun to portray this long-term plan – the “Korea model” – as “breaking news.” Describing US military interventions in other countries as “the American way of Empire,” this TomDispatch article, however, argues that the Bush administration has long held such imperial ambitions.With Korea as Model, Bush Team Ponders Long Support Role in Iraq (June 3, 2007)
The Bush administration is proposing a "Korean model" in Iraq -- a US presence on Iraqi soil for years to come. Both President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have made reference to Vietnam, claiming that US failure stemmed from a hasty withdrawal from the country. A variety of critics, including Donald L. Kerrick, a retired military general and Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council of Foreign Relations, argue that Iraq and Korea are two very different countries. (New York Times)Time for 'Plan B-H' in Iraq? (May 31, 2007)
US President George W. Bush announced that after the end of the troop surge in the summer of 2007, US policy will shift and follow the Baker-Hamilton plan. The Bush administration initially rejected the plan in December 2007, but will now utilize it in hopes of gaining broader support. The strategy focuses on training the Iraqi army, decreasing US troops, sending US Special Forces operations to fight al-Qaeda, and opening diplomatic relations with Iran. (Washington Post)Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation (May 9, 2007)
The majority of the Iraqi Parliament signed a petition demanding a US timetable for withdrawal. The document will be presented to the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament who, according to the country’s law, must then put it to a vote. Such a move shows that politics are shifting in Iraq as Sunnis and Shias are putting aside their differences and uniting to stand against the occupation. This emerging group opposes the oil law and Maliki’s government, while supporting an independent, sovereign and united Iraq. Although the US labels the nationalists as “extremist,” they have the support of most Iraqis, who oppose the occupation and see the nationalists as the best hope for reconciliation in Iraq. (AlterNet)A Democratic Sell-Out on Bush’s Mercenaries (April 29, 2007)
The bill passed by Democrats in the US Congress mandating a withdrawal from Iraq does not establish a full-scale troop pull out. The document includes various exceptions, allowing US soldiers to remain in the country to protect US-owned facilities and citizens, train Iraqi Security Forces and launch special projects against al-Qaeda. An Institute for Policy Studies analysis said that the “protection forces” and advisors could add up to 40,000 to 60,000 US troops. Further, the bill does not deal with the permanent bases and the private mercenaries, suggesting that the US intends to maintain its presence in Iraq for a long time.(TomDispatch)Will Iraq Be the Next Rwanda? (April 15, 2007)
This Washington Post opinion piece claims that the withdrawal of US troops would generate more sectarian violence and create a humanitarian catastrophe on the scale of the Rwandan genocide. The author uses the discourse of “humanitarian intervention” to justify the US presence in Iraq. However, critics argue that the occupation has indeed exacerbated, if not generated, violence in the country.Sadr Ministers Walk Out of Iraq Government in Protest at US (April 17, 2007)
Six members of the Iraqi Cabinet, loyal to the nationalist Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, left the government to protest Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s support of the US occupation. According to the Sadrist politicians, “Maliki is ignoring the will of the people over the issue of a timed American withdrawal.” Many Shias also see the US as manipulating Iraqi politics in order to prevent them from gaining real power. The departure of al-Sadr representatives could destabilize Maliki’s government, which depends on the Shia majority in the Parliament. Further, this episode reflects the increasing discontent with the US occupation among Iraqis. (Independent)Iraqi Shias Protest in Holy City (April 9, 2007)
Marking the fourth year that US troops have occupied Baghdad, hundreds of thousands of Shias protested in the streets of Najaf, calling for the US withdrawal. While waving Iraqi flags, Iraqis shouted “no” to America and “yes” to the Shia leader Moqtada Sadr. The cleric advised his followers not to use violence and to unite with the Iraqi security forces against the “enemy.” The peaceful march symbolizes the increasing anti-US sentiment among Iraqis and the strong mass opposition to the occupation. (BBC)US Troops Can Withdraw in 18 Months - Iraq VP (March 24, 2007)
The US Congress passed a bill setting September 2008 as a deadline for withdrawing its troops from Iraq. Although George W. Bush said he would veto the bill, this result represents a defeat for the US president and suggests that the Senate has lost faith in his conduct of the Iraq War. The Iraqi Vice President, Tareq al-Hashemi, welcomed the timetable for withdrawal and said that the Iraqi troops will be trained and able to handle security issues on their own within one year and a half at the latest. (Reuters)
Archived Articles
Back to the Main Iraq Index
More Information on the Occupation and Rule in Iraq
More Information the Coalition in Iraq
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
