by Damozel | Here's the piece in Reuters. Certainly Maliki made it clear before now that
his government wants us out. Here's what he has said about the
16-month time frame:
When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US 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." (Spiegel Online)
Obama himself recently backstepped from any firm commitment, but certainly this is a good sign that the Iraqis are prepared to enable him in keeping his original promise.
What's significant about Maliki's statement is that it leaves no doubt about the wishes of the Iraqi government: they want us to commit to getting out. Obviously, no date can be set in stone -- as Maliki's allowance for 'the possibility of slight change' allows -- and any withdrawal plan is going to be based on certain assumptions that could conceivably turn out not to be the case.
You could argue that both Obama and McCain's plans are, in practice the same. Either one is going to have to take account of where we are and the circumstances that apply before beginning -- or finishing -- troop withdrawals. But the devil's in the details as they say. There's a difference between saying firmly, 'We have to leave, and we're committed to getting out;' and 'We'll get out after we've weighed up all the interests and determined it's time.'
Maliki's comment gets rid of any argument that we owe it to the Iraqi government to stick around till they don't need us anymore.
Fundamentally, Maliki's comment is evidence of what the Iraqi government sees as the primary impediment to their government attaining real legitimacy: Us. The American occupation is hugely unpopular, and if Iraq is to truly stabilize, its government needs to be seen as independent from the occupiers and opposed to their continued presence. (Ezra Klein)
Josh Marshall at TPM:
McCain has invested his entire campaign in support for the purportedly nascent Iraqi democracy al Maliki represents and the claim that Obama's support for a timetable for withdrawal irresponsibly risks losing the gains we've achieved and giving Iraq back to al Qaeda.
Here, with a brush of the hand and in so many words, al Maliki says, "No, we're good."
Furthermore, Maliki's pretty much put paid to the idea that redeployment at any time except one of our choosing can be reframed as a 'defeat.'
What's more, he's given Obama want amounts to a potent new talking point by defining American redeployment out of Iraq as 'victory'. Says Maliki: "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias." (TPM)
Some of my fellow Dem-bloggers see this as a turning point in the campaign. I wish I could believe it. I mean, rationally, of course, it ought to be. But when, please, have the driving forces of the GOP or the so-called Right generally been rational on this issue?
They are unlikely to concede that the position can be right if it's Obama's --- what matters to them isn't whether an argument is right or wrong, but who is making it.
Ezra Klein points out that if Maliki had said the exact opposite, John McCain and the so-called 'Right' would be all over it. Klein gets that it doesn't work the same when Obama is the one who scores big points.
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.
Marc Ambinder still has a touching faith in the power of facts.
This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing.
Well, one McCainite apparently read the hand-writing on the wall:
Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked." (Marc Ambinder)
Josh Marshall said he was resigned to hearing McCain's camp find some way to reframe the facts.
McCain may also say that his 'surge' strategy is what made all this possible. But fundamentally that's not a point Obama is arguing. The debate is about whether or not to leave. And on that count, Maliki has now placed McCain is an extremely precarious position. (TPM)
Here we go with the first reframe:
His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders." (Marc Ambinder; emphasis added)
The Difference Between Obama & McCain on Iraq: When Can Withdrawals Begin?
Maliki Tries to Unsay What We All Know He Said: A Buck Naked Bloggerama
ALSO:
Bush Agrees to Timeline for Withdrawing Troops from Iraq?
Obama: It's Time to Begin to End the War
Iraqis Unhappy with US Demand for Indefinite Presence
RECENT POSTINGS
The Very Privileged Richard Cheney
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft: Waterboarding Isn't Torture
.
Comments