OT - Iraqi PM Backs Obama Withdrawal Plan

[NoMyths]

Game over?

Link (Faux News, for a change): Al-Maliki: I Support Obama's Withdrawal Timetable

Originally Posted by McCain in 2004:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq — and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Originally Posted by Senior Republican Strategist today

We're f*cked.

Quote link: Al-Maliki's Announcement: A Big Deal

[NoMyths]

dola...

As it turns out, one reason the story came to light is because a White House staffer accidentally sent an e-mail about the Reuters report to their wide distribution list rather than an internal list.

Link: White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan

[Dutch]

The situation in Iraq is looking increasingly better.

[SirFozzie]

That's because Al-Qaeda is sending their foreign fighters to Afghanistan to try to send em where our troops are weaker.

Let's not forget the issues in Pakistan, especially in the border area.

[Vegas Vic]

It’s not surprising that Nouri al-Maliki backs Obama’s withdrawal plan, or any other withdrawal plan for that matter. As soon as we get the hell out of there, al-Maliki and the Shi’ites can get on with the business of taking over the country.

[Tekneek]

Not. my. problem.

People like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice get to take the blame for this, whether they want to or not. Yet another war started on bogus intelligence that we cannot win, and that the people we are supposedly helping and protecting would generally prefer we just leave.

[miked]

But OMG. 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, terrorists win, fighting it over there so we don't fight it here, no attacks on American soil, emboldening our enemies, cut and run, power vacuum...

I ran out of buzzwords/phrases.

[lungs]

Enemies of freedom.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

That's because Al-Qaeda is sending their foreign fighters to Afghanistan to try to send em where our troops are weaker.

Let's not forget the issues in Pakistan, especially in the border area.

I can accept that. And as Al-qaeda leaves Iraq and heads back to Afghanistan, that will give the Iraqi government precious time to strengthen their army, police, and government while maintaining some stability. No need for us to leave right away, honestly, unless things are really going as well as they seem.

There really is no play now for the Al-qaeda except to go back to the mountains of Afghanistan and hope for basic survival.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan

... a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

.

[albionmoonlight]

I just don't see the American public paying enough attention to care. Short of a major attack overseas, this stuff is all spinnable noise.

[JPhillips]

Bishop: That's just pressure from the White House. That statement was released by CENTCOM. If Maliki was mistranslated he was mistranslated three times. Of course, they won't say where he was mistranslated, we should just trust them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I just don't see the American press paying enough attention to care. Short of a major attack overseas, this stuff is all spinnable noise.

Fixed.

[lighthousekeeper]

This thread needs more JiMGa.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I can accept that. And as Al-qaeda leaves Iraq and heads back to Afghanistan, that will give the Iraqi government precious time to strengthen their army, police, and government while maintaining some stability. No need for us to leave right away, honestly, unless things are really going as well as they seem.

There really is no play now for the Al-qaeda except to go back to the mountains of Afghanistan and hope for basic survival.

No need except that as we spend 10 BILLION dollars a month in Iraq our own bridges, power grids systems, and air traffic control infrastructure is rapidly decaying being that most of it is from the 1940-1950s era.

[Tekneek]

Man up and build your own new air traffic control infrastructure, power grid infrastructure, and bridge/transportation infrastructure, and stop looking to the government for handouts! We all have to sacrifice during a time of war, so if flying takes forever or a few planes crash, so be it. If we have to deal with power reliability issues, just think about parts of the world with no power at all. And if a few bridges go down, that's just the price of war. Stop whining about everything already! I'm sure it's all in your head anyway!

This message paid for by McCain for President.

[NoMyths]

Evidently CENTCOM didn't clarify al-Dabbagh's remarks accurately enough either.

Link: AP: Iraqi officials hope for U.S. troop pullout by 2010.

Full Text:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.

Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.

The timeframe is similar to Obama's proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months. The Iraqi government has been trying to clarify its position on a possible troop withdrawal since al-Maliki was quoted in a German magazine last week saying he supported Obama's timetable.

The Iraqi government later said the prime minister's remarks were misinterpreted.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Der Spiegel has released the interview. In three places al-Malaki makes clear his support for troop withdrawal.

Link: Spiegel Interview with Iraq Leader Nouri al-Malaki: 'The Tenure of Coalition Troops in Iraq Should Be Limited'

Key Quotes:

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

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. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. 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.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

It's worrisome to wonder why CENTCOM is apparently putting out the message that this is a mistranslation, because al-Malaki can't be any clearer in his message.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Galaril

No need except that as we spend 10 BILLION dollars a month in Iraq our own bridges, power grids systems, and air traffic control infrastructure is rapidly decaying being that most of it is from the 1940-1950s era.

If we were strapped for cash because we were building nuclear power plants, I'd buy that, but we aren't (we are still short about 250 nuclear power plants for optimal "green"-ness. But if this is a referendum on how to spend money, I would think it's safe to say that finishing the job right as a contiguous effort will is better than quitting in the middle and coming back later to clean up (think Gulf War I).

EDIT: Okay, we are strapped for cash...but if we are going to use our credit cards on nuclear power plants before we go to war with Iraq, I'm all for it, however...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

This thread needs more JiMGa.

Nah.

A sizable contribution would almost require me to, you know, actually give a flying fuck what Malikiraqipmphyfer thinks or wants. And I don't, not in the damned slightest. Just like a shovel used to dig a ditch, he's a tool to be used when there's a purpose to be served. And I don't generally worry much about what the shovel thinks of the hole.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nah.

A sizable contribution would almost require me to, you know, actually give a flying fuck what Malikiraqipmphyfer thinks or wants. And I don't, not in the damned slightest. Just like a shovel used to dig a ditch, he's a tool to be used when there's a purpose to be served. And I don't generally worry much about what the shovel thinks of the hole.

So when the shovel bends or cracks and no longer serves the purpose as well as it should, it's time to discard that shovel and get a new one?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by lungs

So when the shovel bends or cracks and no longer serves the purpose as well as it should, it's time to discard that shovel and get a new one?

CIA has been doing it for more than 50 years. When a leader no longer served their needs, they either bought the next election, financed a coup, or even supported assassination. Nothing new about US policy in what he is saying, other than being open about it instead of waiting 30-50 years for the history to become unclassified. You can find out about a lot of that in documents that were made available over the past 15 years or so. I don't like it, but the information is out there and it is definitely not pretty.

Jon just doesn't care about anything that isn't best for him. At least he is consistent about it, but I can't subscribe to that philosophy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

So when the shovel bends or cracks and no longer serves the purpose as well as it should, it's time to discard that shovel and get a new one?

Tekneek did the detailed answer already, so I'll just go with "yep".

[Glengoyne]

My question. What is driving Al Malaki's statement?

1)Are the Iraqi police and military really ready to handle security, or demonstrating progress in that regard? Has the resentment of the American presence there finally outweighed the benefit of the added security to the point that Iraq is better off left to 'fend for itself?

2)Is he being pressured from internal sources, and can't appear to bow to American Pressure to allow for a long term base in country?

3)Is he being pressured from external sources, and can't appear to bow to merican Pressure to allow for a long term base in country?

Other motivations? What are they? We know that the second two options are present and accounted for.


The only reason to give this more weight than simple ammunition in a partisan debate is if his motivation is truly the first category.

If the origin for the statement isn't the first, then he is either putting on a show with no actual intention to follow through, or he clearly doesn't have Iraq's best interest at heart.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My question. What is driving Al Malaki's statement?

I'm not sure it matters. Fact is, President Bush is on record saying that we would leave Iraq when they asked us to.

If we can't leave because there's too much violence, and then we can't leave because the violence has lessened enough for the Iraqis to want us to leave, then what exactly was the goal? And when do you leave? Ever?

I sure don't have an answer, but it doesn't seem that anyone else does either.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

If the origin for the statement isn't the first, then he is either putting on a show with no actual intention to follow through, or he clearly doesn't have Iraq's best interest at heart.

This is exactly the reason I put zero stock in any of his statements...as I vote "it's just a show". I concede I could be wrong, and I'm merely pontificating from afar....but it really makes little strategic sense to me for him to have the world's most potent military backing him up and to just want them to go away.

Yes I see how he would want the US military out of sight from the civilian population...yes I see that he wants his own country to enforce their own laws and sovereignty...and yes I see it earns him some goodwill by some with his statements.

But I keep coming back to the same conclusion...unless he believes Iran had nothing to do with funding terrorism and murder in his country...and unless he has forgiven/forgotten the hostilities that have been in place for years with Iran...how could this man be so sure he is ready to cut ties with the US from a purely deterrent perspective with Iran?

[JPhillips]

Because he's Shia, is already fairly close to the Iranians, and fears the minority Sunnis far more than his religious brothers to the East.

[JPhillips]

dola

Couldn't Maliki genuinely think it's time for foreigners to stop running his country?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Couldn't Maliki genuinely think it's time for foreigners to stop running his country?

That is option number one. I'm hoping that is actually the case. If so, then by all means lets get the hell out. It is clearly their decision to make.

[Tekneek]

No matter what, all of this boils down to not really understanding the situation over there when the invasion started. Intelligence was hosed by depending on corrupt/fraudulent contacts inside Iraq that were pushing their own agenda. Combine that with an administration that made it clear the "intelligence" needed to match their preconceived notions and you've got a dangerous cocktail. I don't yet know whether we had good contacts inside Iraq or not, but it is obvious that the bad ones were promoted and their information is what drove the war (and we found out they were mostly lies too late in the game).

I'm not sure that understanding has improved much more after being on the ground for several years. Iraqis are still perceived to be subhuman to many Americans. We spend more time worried about the motivations of the Iraqis for wanting us gone, rather than trying to understand why, or what the motivations of our own government would be for undercutting that. These are all difficult questions, to be sure. Perhaps this is why people should not be so cavalier about the toppling of other governments. That's the easy part. Preventing decades of civil war after the elimination of a powerful leader is the hard part that few want to think/worry about on the front end.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No matter what, all of this boils down to not really understanding the situation over there when the invasion started. Intelligence was hosed by depending on corrupt/fraudulent contacts inside Iraq that were pushing their own agenda. Combine that with an administration that made it clear the "intelligence" needed to match their preconceived notions and you've got a dangerous cocktail. I don't yet know whether we had good contacts inside Iraq or not, but it is obvious that the bad ones were promoted and their information is what drove the war (and we found out they were mostly lies too late in the game).

I'm not sure that understanding has improved much more after being on the ground for several years. Iraqis are still perceived to be subhuman to many Americans. We spend more time worried about the motivations of the Iraqis for wanting us gone, rather than trying to understand why, or what the motivations of our own government would be for undercutting that. These are all difficult questions, to be sure. Perhaps this is why people should not be so cavalier about the toppling of other governments. That's the easy part. Preventing decades of civil war after the elimination of a powerful leader is the hard part that few want to think/worry about on the front end.

I agree with everything here.

[flere-imsaho]

One hundred and ten years after his death, Otto Von Bismarck is still relevant. Realpolitick is perhaps the only foreign policy that has ever made lasting sense.

[molson]

What is it exactly that Obama and the supporters of a timetable mean by "withdrawal". I think I assumed that he meant that all US presence would be removed from Iraq, but Obama seems to now be conceding that it's his "goal" only "to no longer have U.S. troops engaged in combat operations in Iraq", and that he would discuss with military leaders how many troops to keep in the country for security, humanitarian, and training purposes. That could be substantial number.

We're staying, no matter what the Iraqis want, that seems pretty clear, even to Obama. The question appears to be how long we're engaged in actual combat operations.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

What is it exactly that Obama and the supporters of a timetable mean by "withdrawal". I think I assumed that he meant that all US presence would be removed from Iraq, but Obama seems to now be conceding that it's his "goal" only "to no longer have U.S. troops engaged in combat operations in Iraq", and that he would discuss with military leaders how many troops to keep in the country for security, humanitarian, and training purposes. That could be substantial number.

We're staying, no matter what the Iraqis want, that seems pretty clear, even to Obama. The question appears to be how long we're engaged in actual combat operations.

What they mean may depend on whether they are talking to Democratic Primary voters, or General Election voters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by path12

I'm not sure it matters. Fact is, President Bush is on record saying that we would leave Iraq when they asked us to.

I'd love to see the context of this because it's obvious to me there's an implication that the Iraqis also have to be ready for us to leave, from our perspective. In the most violent months of Iraq a few years back, if the Iraqis had asked us to leave, obviously we wouldn't have. It's only when it's a tougher decision that people start to put such an absolute meaning behind these fluff statements of the administration. And what does "on record" mean - under oath?

Iraq is only a marginally soverign country at this point, I don't think we have any duty to follow the wishes of a propped up government that we created (which goes into why this was a bad idea in the first place, but that's another story).

It also may be telling that Obama said today that he'd talk to "military leaders" and not "Iraq" about how many troops to leave behind.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What they mean may depend on whether they are talking to Democratic Primary voters, or General Election voters.

Damn politics are annoying, you're exactly right. If you don't pay close attention, all you hear is "Obama wants to leave, Obama wants to leave". That gets the hard-core Democrats excited. Then you read a statement from Obama like, "It is my goal to no longer have U.S. troops engaged in combat operations in Iraq", and it sounds like carefully worded code to moderates who are concerned about us leaving too quickly.

Would Obama supporters feel betrayed if he kept a substanial "security presence" in Iraq, as long as they're not involved in combat operations?

It's kind of funny that he may have generated this wave of liberal momentum on the idea of something even he knows isn't practical.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

What is it exactly that Obama and the supporters of a timetable mean by "withdrawal".

I think we mean "time horizon" now. Oh wait....

[NoMyths]

Some enjoyable reading. Yes, there's no question that there will still be a substantial American involvement in Iraq after even ending major combat operations -- security and administration for the oil infrastructure alone requires it.

Barack Obama's position, from his website:

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

[path12]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd love to see the context of this because it's obvious to me there's an implication that the Iraqis also have to be ready for us to leave, from our perspective. .

Well, some quick Google-fu comes up with:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2848888.shtml

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra..._gop_lead.html

This one has McDonnell saying the same thing, but it references Bush's interview with Charlie Rose in April 07 also -- tried to click on that link to verify but was blocked because of streaming......

[molson]

Originally Posted by path12

Well, some quick Google-fu comes up with:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2848888.shtml

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra..._gop_lead.html

This one has McDonnell saying the same thing, but it references Bush's interview with Charlie Rose in April 07 also -- tried to click on that link to verify but was blocked because of streaming......

Well that's pretty clear, and a pretty stupid thing to say without qualification, because you can't predict history, and it's pretty vauge - what does "leave" mean, and who exactly speaks for the Iraqi government?

It's a moot point for now, because regardless of which translation of the Iraqi PM you buy, they certainly aren't and haven't asked us to leave yet. Who knows what happens in 16 months.

If they asked us to leave today, this very minute, we would refuse (and so would Obama).

[path12]

I'd agree as far as them saying it kind of boxes them in at this point.

I'd disagree on the benefits of being out of there -- but that's been rehashed in this forum time and time again and I'm just fine with us having a different opinion on that rather than go over it once more.

IIRC the phased withdrawal over a period of time has always been Obama's viewpoint. Many of his positions are more centrist than they've been portrayed in the media, IMO. A lot of Dems had a problem with that early in the campaign (again, IIRC)....

[molson]

Originally Posted by path12

Many of his positions are more centrist than they've been portrayed in the media, IMO.

That seems to be true - Clinton did well to move towards the center and I'm sure we'll see more and more of the centrist side of Obama as the general election approaches.