Maliki agrees with Obama’s 16 months’ proposal

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect

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.

McCain needs to either come out with a new Iraq plan featuring a withdrawal component tomorrow, or explain why he believes America should fight for continued military dominance in Iraq over the objections of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government.

Why do I suspect the rightwingers will declare that this has been their position all along? …

On second thought, they won’t. They’ll come up some other mind-bending, through-the-looking-glass dodge that I can’t envision yet.

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    If Maliki really wants a concrete timetable for U.S. withdrawal, why is he talking to a German magazine about it? Why not just make it a formal, public request from the Iraqi government to the U.S. government?

    Why do I suspect the rightwingers will declare that this has been their position all along?

    Well, speaking for myself, my position all along has been that we should leave if the Iraqi government asks us to.

    McCain needs to either come out with a new Iraq plan featuring a withdrawal component tomorrow, or explain why he believes America should fight for continued military dominance in Iraq over the objections of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government.

    Ezra Klein is a typical clueless leftist if he actually believes this sort of nonsense. Are there any leftists who aren’t ready to accuse the U.S. of imperialism at the drop of the hat? McCain not having a timetable for withdrawal must mean he wants “military dominance” over Iraq. I’m sure McCain is all for fighting the democratic government we’ve been helping for years. Klein is either an idiot or demonstrating the usual intellectual dishonesty regularly found among people who write for The American Prospect.

    Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 1:31 pm

  2. KevinA wrote:

    Well, I think David provided your answer: Maliki’s lying and, and… BLAME THE LEFTISTS!!!!!!!

    And David, take out any moral connotations here, but what else could describe a situation where we have 50 permanent bases, like McBush want, 75k+ troops in theater for many more years, with a heavy presence? Neo-imperial or quasi-imperial seem to fit.

    Now, our motives may be fairly pure, and empire isn’t always bad, provided you know where you’re going with it. But let’s at least be clear about the debate we need to have.

    Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 2:18 pm

  3. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Klein (and, by extension, this post) is somewhere less than half right:

    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.

    Iraqi politicians must project independence and strength to satisfy the electorate, even as they will need continued US backing to develop the ISF until about 2013 (which will probably happen to significant degree whoever is elected US president, unless Obama proves to be insane).

    In addition, Iraqi politicians like to bluster even more than ours (see Maliki’s rounds of comments on terrorism having been defeated in Iraq). So all of this parsing of the statements of Iraqi officials as some sort of gospel that validates or invalidates aspects of our own policy is a little tiresome.

    When Maliki gets ahead of himself and declares victory against terrorism, the wire services counter with a recent bombing in the next paragraph. When he says that he thinks most US troops can be out in 16 months, the wire services treat it like gospel, as it validates a certain view that’s more politically amenable.

    Honest and close observers of Iraqi politics know to take many statements of either variety from Iraqi politicians as relevant, but with large grains of salt.

    I don’t consider myself a “right winger,” much less prone to “mind-bending, through-the-looking-glass” stuff, though others might. But as a close observer of Iraq and someone not particularly against most of the rest of Obama’s platform, my assessment is that his position on Iraq is irresponsible bunk served up for mass consumption of his base.

    Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 2:53 pm

  4. Alon Levy wrote:

    Bill, it’s easy to counter declarations that terrorism has been defeated: all that’s needed is a report of one major terrorist attack. What contrary facts would you suggest the wire services mention when they report that Maliki wants the US out?

    Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 5:00 pm

  5. Stephen wrote:

    “satisfying the [Iraqi] electorate” … a.k.a. democracy

    re: McCain. His current position is that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years. Klein is simply calling on him to revise that policy. Why not? If he doesn’t, then, yes, he proposes military dominance over a country against the wishes of the involved parties.

    As far as “why doesn’t Maliki” make a more formal pronouncement, that’s quite the opposite of the reality. The UN legal mandate for our presence will expire soon. If nothing else happens, then that expires and there is no legal basis for our continued presence. The “burden of action,” to make up a phrase, is on the U.S. and Iraqi government to put together some legal basis for our presence. McCain likes to compare the situation to South Korea, where there is specific, legal, governmentally-approved Status of Forces agreement that is periodically renewed. So, if Maliki merely talks to European magazines and the Iraqi parliament takes no action, then that effectively terminates our presence, or it’s legal basis.

    Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 6:15 pm

  6. Redhand wrote:

    Honest and close observers of Iraqi politics know to take many statements of either variety from Iraqi politicians as relevant, but with large grains of salt.

    OK, but we should stilltake Maliki at his word. Otherwise we fall into the old Philippines paradigm: “Sure we’ll give you sovereignty and democracy,” [and sotto voce] “but only when we think you’re ready for it.” See Back to the Future: the US in Iraq and the Philippines and the saner discussion of the subject in Britannica Online

    Don’t even try to tell me that the Neocons aren’t really neocolonialists. They are.

    Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 10:22 pm

  7. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Alon -

    What contrary facts would you suggest the wire services mention when they report that Maliki wants the US out?

    Beyond my own reporting on Iraqi politics, which included interviews with folks who work in Maliki’s office, there’s this:

    The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, “the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal”.

    That was the version of Mr Maliki’s remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.

    It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

    There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

    Read the whole thing, as they say.

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 10:20 am

  8. Bill from INDC wrote:

    “satisfying the [Iraqi] electorate” … a.k.a. democracy

    Exactly. Almost exactly like how Obama has promised you that he’s going to end US involvement in Iraq, when he really won’t/can’t. A good measure of it is posturing.

    McCain likes to compare the situation to South Korea, where there is specific, legal, governmentally-approved Status of Forces agreement that is periodically renewed. So, if Maliki merely talks to European magazines and the Iraqi parliament takes no action, then that effectively terminates our presence, or it’s legal basis.

    McCain and Bush have compared it to S Korea, Germany, etc, and it may or may not wind up like that. Recent noises by certain members of the Iraqi government/parliament have indicated that it won’t be … but given that the vast majority of representative Kurdish and Sunni politicians want mid to long term US involvement, noises by Shia and a smaller subset of Sunni politcos to mollify their base don’t mean it positively won’t wind up a long-term arrangement.

    But whatever - if Iraq can defend itself and doesn’t support terror, that is their option to ask the US to leave.

    As for a legal agreement, the odds of Iraq not signing a bridge agreement to keep a US presence are about 0. The majority of Iraqi government officials, including ones who are often characterized as being in Iran’s pocket, fear neighborly intervention above all else, and will not risk the dissolution of their country by kicking out US forces before the IA are ready.

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 10:34 am

  9. Bill from INDC wrote:

    BTW Alon, et al -

    The mixed messages out of Maliki’s office are a perfect example of why seizing on one of them is sort of a futile exercise. You can’t take Maliki at his public word when their is no consistency. To some extent, this is an Arab cultural paradigm interfacing with the new paradigm of Democracy.

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 10:38 am

  10. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Meant “*there* is no consistency” in comment above of course.

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 10:41 am

  11. Stephen wrote:

    Bill,

    Just to put all this in a realistic framework, I agree that either McCain or Obama will find himself constrained by realities: one, to show some progress toward withdrawal, and two, to not let the sh*t hit the fan in Iraq. Another thing we can be certain of in all this is that there will be unforeseen developments, changed circumstances, and new decisions to be made.

    I’d rather have all that in the hands of a guy who called this correctly at the outset, rather than a guy who has supported Bush throughout, and seems quite committed to the current course.

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 11:42 am

  12. David C. wrote:

    As far as “why doesn’t Maliki” make a more formal pronouncement, that’s quite the opposite of the reality. The UN legal mandate for our presence will expire soon. If nothing else happens, then that expires and there is no legal basis for our continued presence.

    All that is completely irrelevant to my point. Nothing is stopping the Iraqi government from requesting that we withdraw our forces — if they really want them gone. Whether they need to make such a request from a legal standpoint is irrelevant to the fact that they could make it, if they chose to do so.

    I’d rather have all that in the hands of a guy who called this correctly at the outset,

    I’d rather have it in the hands of the guy that went with the weight of available evidence at the time, and decided that an open enemy like Saddam needed to be removed. I want someone that will err on the side of protecting the U.S.

    and seems quite committed to the current course.

    The current course appears to be working. Are you stuck in 2006?

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 1:03 pm

« Let’s put that shoe on the other foot
Personal Update - Greek »