[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;746876]And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

-SPENCE.

The "Iraqi's" were not some inimical force combatting the Bush administration. They were the governing body that was originally put in place by Bush to govern. They had to start from zero, to learn the democratic process (with the aid of American Iraqis, many of whom were picked by the Bush team) and to go through elections, I think it was three by the time of the SOFA agreement. (I love the irony of our liberal pols jubilantly celebrating the first election held in Bosnia AFTER TEN YEARS of our occupation--of course that was Clinton's war, so it was a good one. But three elections, or two, I don't recall now, in six years of the bad war in Iraq were . . . OK . . . but . . .) And, yes, Bush did envision a long stay in Iraq--we're still in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc., etc., but he did promise to abide by Iraq's will in the matter--democracy is what he wanted to establish in Iraq, and eventually in the Middle East, not American occupation. And it was the plan that Iraq, as a democratic state, had the final say. It was to be negotiable, the Iraqis still needed help, but the ultimate decision was to be theirs. So their rejection of US proposals and creation of a time-line was done hand in hand with Bush, not against him. Whether that time line stands, may depend on future conditions on the ground. The Iraqis felt, at the end of 2008, that conditions were good, so, probably for political reasons rather than security ones, they went for it. And Bush, maybe to wrap it up in time to hand Obama the gift--or the poison pill, said OK.