March 24, 2007

Iraqi VP: Pullout Would Cripple Security

Iraqi VP Tareq al-Hashemi responded to yesterday's vote in Congress by emphasizing that Iraqi security troops still need more time to avoid creating a security vacuum when the Americans leave. The BBC manages to editorialize in the middle of its report, too:

Iraq's vice-president has warned that a quick withdrawal of US troops could worsen the security situation in Iraq.

Tareq al-Hashemi responded after the US House of Representatives passed a bill imposing a deadline for all US troops to leave Iraq by 31 August 2008.

Mr Hashemi said replacing US troops with poorly-trained Iraqis whose loyalty was questionable would create a security vacuum.

US President George W Bush vowed to veto the Democratic-sponsored bill.

"I do believe that for the common interest of my country we need coalition forces to stay until further notice," Mr Hashemi said on a visit to Japan.

"We are expecting a timetable for conditional withdrawal," he said, adding that was in the national interest of Iraq, the US and the UK.

When I read this, I wondered why Hashemi would have described his own troops as "poorly trained" and of questionable loyalty. That would have been news, after all. The Sunni VP would have made headlines all over the world with a statement like that -- had he actually made it. Instead, it seems from the lack of quote marks that the BBC decided to add that in order to helpfully assign bias to its account.

Actually, the Sunni leader should make headlines for his insistence that Iraq needs the Americans to stay. He offers a little for all sides, stating that a timetable for the end of the mission would be in Iraq's interest, but that the precipitous withdrawal forced by this bill would be a disaster. The first deadline comes in July of this year, with a series of silly demands, any single failure of which would force a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

Will the Democrats pay any heed to Hashemi, whose own brother got killed by a terrorist attack? So far, the answer is no.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraqi VP: Pullout Would Cripple Security:

» 2007.03.24 Iraq/Iran/Surrendercrat Roundup from Bill's Bites
Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner?Ed Morrissey Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared last week that he would fly to New York to personally address the UN Security Council before a vote to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for their uranium [Read More]

Comments (7)

Posted by Curmudgeon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 10:23 AM

Well, there is no uncertainty about the loyalty of the BBC.

Posted by BoWowBoy [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 10:44 AM

Victory will come when we understand the tactics of our enemies ........including the BBC.

Thanks for t illuminating the words of the enemy Cap.

Posted by wham1000 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 11:04 AM

It is probable that very few people can predict the consequences of an immediate pull out or of an extended involvement in Iraq. Most of the debate is tainted by ideology or worse by political allegiance. But incomprehensibly nobody takes in account the fact that most of the “elected” Iraqis officials were Shiite exiles as VP Tareq al-Hashemi. He and his group are striving to consolidate there power at the cost, if necessary, of Iraq’s interest. We are probably being taking advantage of and the eventual outcome of this situation could be very deceptive indeed.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 11:06 AM

The Iraqi troops will NEVER be ready to take over security. At any one time ONE THIRD of them are on leave. The others are militia members that joined up to get trained and get weapons, all the while staying loyal to their militia leaders. Maliki wants the US there so they keep killing members of the Sunni insurgency, that way when we leave and Maliki starts his ethnic cleansing, he'll have fewer Sunni's to eliminate.Iran will continue to dominate the Shia south by supporting the Badr Brigade, a Iranian funded and trained pro-Iranian militia that controls most of Basra. The Sunni dominated countries of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt will continue to support their brother Sunni's in Iraq, and what you will have is endless civil war. Eventually this will break the back of our army and the American people will throw the gop and its neo-con clowns to the curb where they belong. Is it any wonder that according to studies, the higher the education a person achieves, the more likely he is to vote democratic? Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 4:17 PM

CD's prediction will likely come true IF we pull out of the Iraq pacification efford prematurely. But if we stick around, and prevent Iran from continuing its infiltration and support of the Shi'ite south (and even better, destabalize the Iranian regime), CD and the rest of the the moonbat defeatists will be proven wrong--again.

Since no responsible administration can possibly allow the oil fields of Iraq to fall into Iranian hands, there is no likelihood of our pulling out unless the irresponsible Democrats stop funding or elect another Jimmy Carter.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by burt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 4:17 PM

"...the higher the education a person achieves, the more likely he is to vote democratic"

Another canard of the left not supported by anything real, also, not indicated by the level of left comments on this blog.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 5:08 PM


I have known a lot of high school drop outs who vote Democrat when they bother to vote at all. They like free stuff.

Stereotypes are fun aren't they?

Then of course there are the Gulfstream liberals, many of whom are wealthy and well connected, condemning the wealthy and well connected. The snotty college professors with tenure trashing America while they live in comfort with a nice 401 plan. etc.

The truth is if the Democrats want to run this thing then they need to win the White House. I would say this bill makes that less likely, not more so.