It's May 16th, do you know where your Iraq Deadline is? Intense efforts continue today inside Iraq to finalize nominees to head all of the key posts in Iraq's new government. Efforts have intensified since the last time efforts intensified over the previous intense efforts, and the ones before those. Agreement on the final composition of the full new Iraq government is now getting closer, after months of previously only being within reach. Here is the latest snapshot according to the Associated Press:
"The violence came as Iraqi lawmakers alternately -- and with varying degrees of sincerity -- withdrew from the Cabinet negotiations or threatened to do so, and accused each other of greed, sectarianism and self-interest.
Deputies said Prime Minister-designate Nouri al-Maliki could announce a partial Cabinet ahead of a constitutionally mandated May 22 deadline, taking for himself the disputed defense and interior ministry posts.
President Jalal Talabani, however, rejected that option.
"The presidency council does not want to see such key ministries excluded," Talabani said Monday after meeting with his Shiite and Sunni Arab vice presidents. "We think the entire Cabinet should be announced."
http://tinyurl.com/...
Things don't always work by the calendar inside Iraq it seems, deadlines come and go, and delays just happen. After the deadline passed that was legally imposed on altering the final draft of the Iraq Constitution that was to be submitted to Iraq voters for final approval, the final draft was redrafted to incorporate some last minute changes, and the final, final version of the Constitution now can legally be altered by the new Iraq elected national assembly, all by a new deadline of course. So when these important Iraq deadlines are missed and/or pushed back, based on new positive and/or negative developments, should that be the end of it? Should it be "BZZZZ Sorry, times up, you don't get to have a new government or constitution"?
A case could be made for that, either here or there I suppose, but it would be a stupid case. It would fly in the face of the cherished folklore; "Better late than never". In the case of Iraq, "better late than never" should be written 100 times on each and every blackboard, both in our country AND in theirs.
Which brings us to another deadline, May 15th. Anyone remember that one? It's the deadline John Kerry declared a while back for announcing the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq if Iraq did not complete formation of a new unity government by that date. Kerry even introduced it into a U.S. Senate resolution. Senator Kerry hasn't had much to say about that deadline lately. Of course he could make the case that a functioning unity government for Iraq is now very, very close, and that important progress toward that goal has been achieved.
Senator Kerry is of course correct, even though the very same case could arguably have been made, to an incrementally lesser extent, back when John Kerry chose to issue his May 15th deadline in the first place. Progress toward a new government inside Iraq was being achieved then also. Which begs the question, what does a deadline mean if it is looked on as guideline, and what does a fixed date become, after it serves as a bench mark?
It would be foolish for the United States to withdraw all of it's forces from Iraq now simply because a May 15th deadline was not completely met. If there are good reasons to withdraw now they can be argued, but an arbitrary date that passes is not one of them, and Senator Kerry seems to acknowledge that with his current silence. So how then should we relate to Kerry's next deadline, the one at the end of this year, if the facts on the ground then communicate something different than the facts on the calendar?