Iraqi PM Maliki Endorses Obama’s Withdrawal Plan
Lost amidst the hoopla of Obama’s overseas trip is a statement issued by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki to the German magazine Der Spiegel .
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
To understand how significant this is, consider for a moment what would have happened if Maliki had endorsed McCain’s position. Ezra Klein gets it right:
To really understand the importance of Maliki’s comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, “at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves.” It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about “Obama’s Iraq Problem.” Obama would probably lose the race.
This is significant because it validates Obama’s strategic support for withdrawal of American troops according to a set – if slightly flexible – timetable. Since the very beginning, Obama has argued that we need to pull US troops out of Iraq in order to pressure the various political elements in Iraq to work toward real compromise. A permanent US presence would not stabilize the country like Korea or Germany, but would actually prolong the political stalemate that prevents the country from moving forward.
There is a major irony to this whole debate. Until earlier this year Republicans insisted that the real question was not past judgment on going to Iraq or decisions made along the way, but what we should do going forward. But now, McCain is trying to cast his support for the surge as evidence that he gets Iraq better than Obama. The problem for McCain is not that he supported the surge but that he viewed the surge as a step toward permanent Korea-style occupation. The difference has always been about strategy – where we should be over the long term – and not tactics. And Maliki just endorsed Obama’s strategic AND tactical position regarding troops in Iraq going forward: it’s time for US troops to move out and soon.
Maliki insists he is not endorsing a US candidate. But he has just done that better than any blanket statement. McCain will argue that Maliki can push this because facts on the ground have made a near-term withdrawal possible. McCain is only partly right here, however. Yes, the security situation has improved to the point where Maliki can speak confidently about a post-US Iraq. But the deeper “fact on the ground” is the deep unpopularity of US troops in Iraq. If this were Korea or Germany, there would be very little political pressure internally to ask US troops to leave. But the fundamental distaste among Iraqis for US troops in the country outweighs any desire to maintain a longterm American security posture there.
If this is a debate about the past, both Obama and McCain can have their say. McCain was right to support the surge and to back Petraeus’ plan to support the Anbar Awakening. Obama was right to oppose the war overall and push for withdrawal sooner rather than later.
But if this is a debate about the future, Maliki has just signaled that Obama’s position is more strategically sound for Iraq and tactically acceptable than McCain’s open-ended commitment.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Mitt Romney Tells Voters: If I’m elected, Don’t Expect Huge Tax Cuts
Posted on Sep 26, 2012
-
Labour Suffers Yet Another Defeat
Posted on Jun 5, 2009
-
The Little Brat On The World’s Block
Posted on May 25, 2009
-
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele and the Republican Party: The Sequel
Posted on Mar 3, 2009
Great. Now if we could just get Obama off this inclination to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan and bring all the troops home then we have a winner.
Barring some major screw-up, while I hate to stick my neck out on something like this or even say it, Maliki just handed the election to Obama whether he meant to or not. His statements, taken apart one at a time, refuted each major building block of McCain's list of reasons why he gets Iraq right and Obama gets it wrong. The “long term agreement similar to Korea or Japan” is apparently exactly the opposite of what the Iraqi leadership wants. The “timetables are surrender” was shot down specifically by Maliki saying the timetable was a sign of victory.” It just goes on and on and gets uglier with each paragraph of the interview. Obama's own staff couldn't have written a more destructive speech for Maliki to give in terms of McCain's plans.
Don't worry, the scandal about Obama to be released in September will hand it right back to McCain.
Ever wonder why McCain has that “what me worry?” affect? He's got a feather in his cap alright..
It's all about timing. He'll take the heat and the darkhorse assignment until September. It works in his favor. Going against Clinton is the only thing he wants to avoid..
The GOP and the Press know Obama is a done deal. Too bad the rest of us don't…yet…
“Now if we could just get Obama off this inclination to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan and bring all the troops home”
Obama could well “fail” to re-deploy the troops in Afghanistan after getting them out of Iraq, but send them home instead. He may well send the first troops taken out of Iraq home right away to get good PR, no matter what he does with the other troops later.
“Ever wonder why McCain has that “what me worry?” affect?”
Is it because he doesn't know what else to do or can't do anything else?
Unless you can prove that Obama shot those boys then no one cares about Obama being gay, bisexual, cocaine addict or whatever else is floating around out there.
The day they elected Bill Clinton to the White House who was a flag burning antiwar draft dodger then all bets were off.
Neocon, he's talking about Larry Sinclair (sp?) and nothing more. The whole point of an “October Surprise” is to bring out something shortly before the election which nobody expected or saw coming. Sinclair has been marching up and down like a stoned peacock begging for a moment of microphone time from anyone who will give it to him. The press checked into his delusional charges, found that he wasn't even in the same city at the same time as Obama for a couple, and might have been “in the same city at the same time” for another, but the guy is a junkie looking for attention and being propped up by the Hillary PUMAs. Pretty much of a piece with the “Whitey Tape” coming from Larry Johnson “any day now.”
Elrod.
To repeat what I said on another thread, before we get all excited, it's good to remember that al Maliki is also campaiging, for the coming Iraqi elections (in Oct?)
I wouldn't be surprised if he did a bit of clarifying and extending his remarks in due time. I just don't like to count chckens before they hatch.
It's getting very interesting to me that everytime Obama gets knocked for being an inexperience amateur, events conspire to support him. He was roasted by just about everyone when he said if he had actionable intelligence on a high value target inside Pakistan, he'd attack. Then a week later Bush did the very same thing. Then he was excoriated for suggesting he would conduct high level meetings with bad guys like Iran. Then Maliki heads to Tehran, the Israelis were talking to the Syrians, and now Bush is intending high level talks with the Iranians. Obama was criticized for wanting to beef up our effort in Afghanistan, and then Adm. Mullin said the same thing. Now McCain is. And now we have Maliki's comments as well as news that the Bush administration and Iraq have agreed to a “general time horizon” for “aspirational goals”. That one reminded me of George Carlin: it's not “shell shock” anymore, now it's “post traumatic stress syndrome”. Likewise, its not “timeline” anymore, now it's “general time horizon for aspirational goals”. Lol!
One could quibble about details in some cases. And sometimes Obama does stumble (his past and present remarks on the surge are a very good example), but it's becoming increasingly clear that Obama's foreign policy approach is much more realistic than naive, as evidenced by the fact that many of his stated intentions are already starting to come to pass.
I read an article this morning where the writer cautioned Obama not to appear too popular on his trip this week because he can't afford to be seen as the “European President” or something. I was left wondering how many people who were inclined to get that impression would vote for him anyway. To me, international relations is going to be key going forward. So I'm inclined to view Obama's high international appeal as a good thing. On the other hand, it seems to me that McCain's jokes about bombing Iran or killing them with cigarrettes, not wanting to talk with anyone unless they meet specific conditions (even though others do — even Israel negotiated with Hamas, something McCain indicated he wouldn't have done), sends signals to the rest of the world that a McCain administration would be more of the same. Some people might be fine with more of the same. But I'm not.