Sunday, September 28, 2003
Here's a tidbit from a Robert Fisk piece in the Independent:
'US-led occupation troops should leave Iraq and be replaced by an international force charged with protecting the country, the president of Iraq's Governing Council said yesterday. Ahmad Chalabi also told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat that a UN resolution to send peace-keepers would signal the end to Iraq's occupation.'
'"We do not want an occupation force in Iraq," he said. "But we want an international force to remain in order to protect Iraq from any external dangers, the same as happens in several Arab countries."'
This is par-for-the-course stuff. The real kicker is the last line:
'Mr Chalabi added that US officials had told him privately that America wanted to withdraw its forces from Iraq as soon as 2004.'
Will the Bush administration withdraw troops from Iraq before the next election? France has said that it would like to see power turned over to Iraqis within a timeframe of months, not years. Bush signaled his disapproval with this idea in his speech to the U.N. with the line (and I'm paraphrasing) about not withdrawing too soon or too late. However that line was sufficiently vague that, should the Bush administration effect a pullout of American troops before the 2004 elections, there would be no hard or fast rhetoric that contradicted administration policy. As for us, nous parlons français.
Andrew 6:40 AM : |
New York Times
The New Yorker
The Atlantic Monthly
Bloggers we like:
Baseball on Blake Street
Non Tibi Spiro
Bloggers you already know: