Bush Uses Iraq-Based Troops As Domestic Political Pawns, And Almost Nobody Notices
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported on an extraordinary revelation in the ongoing negotiations between the Bush White House and Nouri al-Maliki's Iraqi government over a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Previously, al-Maliki had come out as a proponent of a withdrawal timetable that set "the end of 2010" as "the appropriate time for the withdrawal." This dovetailed neatly with similar calls from the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. As ThinkProgress points out, maybe a little too neatly:
Negotiating the post-UN mandate security agreement with Iraq, Bush argued for more time and both sides ultimately agreed that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, not 2010, even though Bush has said previously that "if they were to say, leave, we would leave."
Why did Bush go back on his word? A source tells ThinkProgress that White House communications staff were concerned that Maliki's endorsement of the 2010 time line would damage Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign. Indeed, during an interview with Iraqi television last week (according to an Open Source Center translation), Maliki suggested that the U.S. presidential elections played a role:Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the [U.S] domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.
In fact, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that as part of the security agreement, Bush wanted U.S. troops to stay in Iraq even longer. "It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011," Talabani said.But by endorsing Obama's time line, Maliki indirectly slighted McCain, who has consistently and strenuously argued against setting a withdrawal date and has even said he wouldn't mind having U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. But Maliki's new position has left McCain scrambling, first saying its "a pretty good timetable," but then denying he used "the word timetable" and later settling on "anything is good."
Despite Bush's constant refrain that commanders, not politics, will decide the course in Iraq, it seems that trying to help his party retain the White House is more important.
Imagine that! A sitting U.S. president uses the U.S. military as pawns in an attempt to manipulate domestic political circumstances? This isn't something with which we lack familiarity. On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton initiated Operation Infinite Reach, launching a cruise missile attacks on terrorist targets in Afghanistan, and what turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. The attacks were made in response to embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, but, as the attacks were initiated on the same day that Monica Lewinsky was set to give a press conference detailing her appearance before Congress, many wondered if Clinton wasn't manufacturing a distraction. In that atmosphere, the media had no trouble speculating that the military had been employed to manipulate domestic political circumstances -- indeed, it's arguable that more people associate the term "wag the dog" with these events than they do with the movie of the same name.
Naturally, what the Bush-Maliki situation has over the Clinton-Sudan incident is the lack of a need to speculate: we have one of the parties attesting to the fact that the decision to prolong the U.S. troop presence has nothing to do with "facts on the ground," rather, it pertains to the presidential election. This is the sort of matter one imagines might come up in the news in the week before the presidential foreign policy debate, but I had a funny feeling that this story would, outside of the blogosphere, die on the vine.
Well, I'm happy to report that I was wrong! No, there's no mention of this story in the Washington Post, nor in the New York Times (though this news does make Thomas Friedman's column seem that much more intoxicatingly clueless), and the television news has been largely concerned with the goings-on in the financial market. Nevertheless, in defiance of my instincts and expectations, it turns out that this story was reported on in full by a single media figure last night. That figure?
Wouldn't you know? 'Twas Rachel Maddow.
[WATCH.]
MADDOW: Between the Wall Street disaster and the presidential campaign, no one's talking much about the war in Iraq right now. But if you're willing to swim upstream a little bit and pay attention to what's going on there, we've suddenly got a lot more clarity about Iraq right now than we've had in a really, really long time.The Iraqi prime minister did an interview on Iraqi state TV last week. It was translated by the U.S. Government's own public translation service "OpenSource.gov." And according to the U.S. Government translation, Maliki said that, "The final date was really the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change in date due to political circumstances related to the domestic situation in the U.S. So it will not be said to the end of 2010, followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date."
In essence, he said when he was negotiating with the Bush administration to pick a withdrawal date for our troops to come home. They initially settled on about 15 months from now, the end of 2010. But then, according to "OpenSource.gov," their government translation, the Maliki government says -- Prime Minister Maliki says the Bush administration came back and told the Iraqis they'd actually like our troops to stay in Iraq an extra year, through 2011.
Why an extra year? Quote, "due to political circumstances related to the U.S. domestic situation." To the prime minister, it says on tape according to our own government's translation, the Bush administration wants to prolong the war in Iraq for an extra year because of our domestic politics.
If you feel like your hair is on fire right now, you're not alone. If you're an Iraq vet or the family member of an Iraq vet, if you're thinking about the prospect of yet another tour of duty in Iraq, not because of any condition on the ground, not because of any national security need, but just because it might be helpful for domestic political purposes here, you have the right to feel like your hair is extra double on fire.
We, here at THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW today contacted the White House to ask for an explanation, a comment or response. This is what an administration official told us, quote, "You've heard us speak about different kinds of timelines or aspirational goals that may be acceptable. We do not have anything to announce on that. What we're focused on is a good agreement, not getting an agreement by a particular date. Stepping back, what we're really pleased about is the fact that we are having these discussions with a sovereign, democratically elected country. Any decisions on troops will be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. That has always been our position; it continues to be our position."
That's the statement we got from the White House today. If you're keeping track at home, you're right. They are not directly denying what the Iraqi prime minister said, which is incredible. What he said is that the Bush administration is keeping the war going an extra year because they think it will be helpful somehow for domestic politics here in the United States.
Does John McCain agree that keeping the war going longer makes for good politics here at home? It seems like that has been his take on it in the past.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: You know, I'm an American person and I'm sure concerned about that. The Republicans are convinced that keeping the war going is good for them politically. I think it's a political stinker. I think there's a reason why the tape you've seen over and over and over again is of John McCain promising to stay 100 years in Iraq. That's the tape that turns up in pro-Obama ads, not pro-McCain ads. It's because it's a political stinker.
Loading comments…
September 24, 2008 12:06 PM