As usual, the OP is disingenuous. Sadr isn't totally disarming the Mahdi army, just part of it-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...WTUernQ5tIuHQBUQ2s0NUE
And the Op is obviously trying to pump a little sunshine up our collective skirts with this-
Longterm commitments? Like what? How vague can you get, PJ?
Residual forces? Heh. Likely not many and not for long- the current lull in Iraq iis predicated on our departure. while the Sadrists and the rest of Iraq can probably find ways to put up with each other (they've done it before), that doesn't mean that they're willing to put up with us in the bargain...
Preferential oil deals? Permanent bases? Forget it. The problem with "freeing the Iraqi people" is that doing what they want isn't nearly the same as doing what we want... No matter what kind of rosy revisionist history spin is put on it... We've gone from the new version of Germany/ Japan/ Korea to some rather lame attempts to represent complete withdrawal on a timetable as something, anything else...
On Thursday, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr said the Shiite cleric will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops ? but may lift the order if the security agreement fails to contain a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.
The statement by Sheik Salah al-Obeidi came as al-Sadr planned to spell out details of a formula to reorganize his Mahdi Army militia by separating it into an unarmed cultural organization and elite fighting cells.
"This move is meant to offer an incentive for the foreign forces to withdraw," al-Obeidi said. "The special cells of fighters will not strike against foreign forces until the situation becomes clear vis-a-vis the Iraq-U.S. agreement on the presence of American forces here."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...WTUernQ5tIuHQBUQ2s0NUE
And the Op is obviously trying to pump a little sunshine up our collective skirts with this-
Finally, expect to see a major shift in the Iraq debate. We will no longer be talking about time tables and withdrawals but instead will start talking about long term commitments and residual forces.
Longterm commitments? Like what? How vague can you get, PJ?
Residual forces? Heh. Likely not many and not for long- the current lull in Iraq iis predicated on our departure. while the Sadrists and the rest of Iraq can probably find ways to put up with each other (they've done it before), that doesn't mean that they're willing to put up with us in the bargain...
Preferential oil deals? Permanent bases? Forget it. The problem with "freeing the Iraqi people" is that doing what they want isn't nearly the same as doing what we want... No matter what kind of rosy revisionist history spin is put on it... We've gone from the new version of Germany/ Japan/ Korea to some rather lame attempts to represent complete withdrawal on a timetable as something, anything else...
