Iraq Wants Quick Withdrawal of U.S. Troops

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's transitional prime minister called Wednesday for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops and the top U.S. commander here said he believed a "fairly substantial" pullout could begin next spring and summer.

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said at a joint news conference with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the time has arrived to plan a coordinated transition from American to Iraqi military control throughout the country.

Asked how soon a U.S. withdrawal should happen, he said no exact timetable had been set. "But we confirm and we desire speed in that regard," he said, speaking through a translator. "And this fast pace has two aspects."

First, there must be a quickening of the pace of U.S. training of Iraqi security forces, and second there must be closely coordinated planning between the U.S.-led military coalition and the emerging Iraq government on a security transition, he said.

"We do not want to be surprised by a withdrawal that is not in connection with our Iraqi timing,"' he said.

Read the whole article, then go back and read the headline again. Do you see anything in the article itself supporting a headline which states that Iraq wants a "quick" pullout of American forces? The headline seems to imply that Iraq wants us out. Now. As though there were some sort of bad blood between the Iraqi government and the American occupiers. Clearly, from the article itself, that isn't true. Iraq is working with U.S. forces toward a pull out date that is as near as possible while still ensuring that Iraq is left properly defended.

Anyway, this is about in line with other things the administration has been telling us all along. I've heard the year 2007 thrown around as a possible date for pull out, and that would seem to mesh with the above commentary. General Casey, the commanding officer of American forces in Iraq, has said that troop levels could probably be cut substantially yet this year.

Regardless, it seems to me the Bush administration deserve some credit for its handling of Iraq. Critics of the war have tended to liken the conflict with the Vietnam War, saying that its a "quagmire" where we'll never make any major progress and that we'll end up leaving in shame. But I think an unbiased review of the facts would lead us to believe otherwise.

The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated success. We crushed the Iraqi army. After the invasion we set a date for national elections, and met that date. The government elected in those elections has made excellent progress and from all outward appearances Iraq will have a working constitution in place on time as well.

The one area where I think most of us think the the Bush administration could have planned better for is the security situation. Leftist anti-war rhetoric and terror sympathizing aside, there is no denying that a better job could have been done as far as battling the terror insurgency that has cropped up since the liberation.

Does that mean this operation has been in any way a failure? No. We've planted the seeds to defeat the terrorists already. If they aren't defeated through military tactics they will be defeated by the fact that the average Iraqi has been exposed to western style liberty and democracy and isn't likely to give it up. If the terrorists want to fight said liberty and democracy they're going to have to kill more than just the American "infidels." They're going to have to kill their fellow Muslims as well. Something that will, in the end, be their undoing.

Its just a matter of time.