More Confusion on Iraq

Saturday's Washington Post contained a relevant bit of information: in November 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister al Mailiki told President Bush that he wanted US soldiers out of Baghdad, and pushed back to the limits of that city, thus leaving it in the "control" of Iraqi security forces.

We basically blew him off and instead are "surging."

Isn't one of the supposed reasons for the surge the idea that the Iraqi's cannot stand up for themselves? Sounds like they want to try. Isn't al Mailiki supposed to be the a sovereign ruler whose requests we must obey? Doesn't sound much like a budding democracy.

I hope this doesn't have anything to do with all those neat permanent military bases we built in Iraq --whose presence is one of the key reasons we lack credibility when we talk about withdrawal.