Obama Frames Iraq Right, Bush And McCain Slow To React

There were two news reports over the weekend about Iraq that George Bush wasn't prepared for, and both the White House and John McCain have been slow to address them. This opens up a window of opportunity for Barack Obama, one that he has already begun to take advantage of. But he needs to do so more succinctly and more forcefully in the next few days, before the Republicans regroup and try to frame it in their own terms.

The first piece of bad news for Bush was that his efforts to tie the hands of his successor on Iraq are apparently toast. Bush tried to foist a "Status Of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) on the Iraqis which would have continued the U.S. military presence there for a long time to come. But the Iraqis balked, and are now demanding that any such agreement include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Not exactly what Bush had in mind, to put it mildly.

Almost exactly one year ago, I wrote of this possibility, in an article titled "Will Maliki Get The U.S. Out Of Iraq?":

If [Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki ... publicly starts calling for a withdrawal timetable or schedule for American troops, then our involvement with the Iraq war will be over. Not immediately, but indeed inevitably.

Because Bush will then have the political cover he so desperately needs. Bush was asked at a press conference earlier this year what he would do if Maliki asked us to leave, and he unequivocally stated that Iraq is a sovereign state, and that if they asked us to leave, then we would. So he's already on record supporting this basic concept.

This is exactly what is happening now. The Iraqi negotiators are demanding a timeline for withdrawal. Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that negotiations for a long-term SOFA plan have basically collapsed, and now they're hoping to salvage a short-term "bridge" agreement and leave long-term negotiations until next year -- after we have sworn in a new American president.

From the article (which is worth reading to understand the details of how we got to this point):

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.

In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year.

The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

Although President Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one U.S. official close to the negotiations. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing. They need something like this in there. ... Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever."

Add to this the fact that our own "generals on the ground" appear likely to recommend more troops coming out of Iraq before the election, and you can see it wasn't a very good weekend for Bush. Or for McCain, for that matter, since his whole Iraq rationale is based upon a stunning piece of doublethink -- the "surge" has been a whopping success; but if we withdraw now, we would be "surrendering" and chaos would ensue in short order, leaving Al Qaeda in charge of Iraq's oil. The fact that this is an enormous contradiction does not seem to have dawned on McCain (or the Republicans), and now it is painfully evident that he's going to have to change his tune swiftly. Because John McCain (like Bush) is also on record saying that if the Iraqis ask us to leave, then we will indeed leave.

Now that the Iraqis are doing so, McCain's going to have to come up with some new spin to explain why Barack Obama and Maliki are now singing from the same songbook on timetables for withdrawal.

But while Bush and McCain are down, they will indeed bounce back, in the very near future. The spin they will use will be VICTORY! as in "we can now talk about timetables for withdrawal in Iraq because we have achieved a stunning VICTORY! and it is now safe and prudent to do so."

Barack Obama, to his credit, has already jumped on this opportunity, with a well-reasoned and intelligent op-ed article in today's New York Times. In it, he says:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face -- from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran -- has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq's leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq's security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Obama's full article is brilliantly written, and well worth reading, as he effectively counters all the arguments the Republicans will doubtlessly use against him, in a pre-emptive fashion. But while it's a great piece of writing, and a sound and well thought out policy, he needs to shorten his main points into soundbites, and then repeat them for the next week or so (in order to get the ideas through the "stupidity filter" that television news routinely uses for any nuanced and intelligent political thoughts).

Here are the main points Obama needs to make:

• Bush tried to tie the hands of the next American president. The Iraqis refused to let him do this.


• The American people want the war to end, the Democrats want the war to end, the Iraqi people want the occupation to end, the Iraqi government wants the occupation to end. The only ones who don't are George W. Bush and John McCain.


• John McCain keeps calling a timetable for withdrawal a "surrender." This is false, and is nothing more than fear-mongering. The Iraqis agree.


• John McCain needs to "refine" his plans for Iraq to match the situation on the ground, and come around to what I've been saying for months and months now. I had the judgment to begin calling for this a long time ago, and I will be happy to see Senator McCain agree with me in the near future.


• I have also been saying for months that Afghanistan is the true frontline in the war on terror, and we need to pay more attention to it as we withdraw our troops from Iraq.


• If John McCain does not listen to Maliki and support a timetable for withdrawal of American troops, how can he call Iraq a sovereign country?


• Apparently Iraq has something to teach America about democracy, since Maliki knew he couldn't get the Iraqi Parliament to agree to Bush's open-ended demands in Iraq, while Bush himself stated that he wasn't even going to bother trying to get it ratified by our own Congress. Democracy means listening to your own people, something both George Bush and John McCain should take note of.

 

Like I said, there is a short window of opportunity here, before the Republican spinmeisters decide how to react to Maliki's demand for a timetable for withdrawal. Their reaction is entirely predictable -- VICTORY! -- and will be coming soon to a cable television show near you. Barack Obama has already started to frame this argument on his terms, and he needs to continue these efforts before McCain's campaign wakes up to the new reality on the ground. For once, it's a piece of cake for the Democrats to frame this to their benefit, and they should do so every chance they get in the near future:

"Timetables are the way to go. The Iraqis agree. The Republicans are finally coming around to realize this, and move toward what has long been the Democratic plan for Iraq. If John McCain doesn't get on board soon, then he is just not qualified to lead this country."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Grunty1]

The entire article is written from the point where B'ushco actually cares about the outcome in Iraq from the US and Iraq perspectives. However, the only true view of Iraq in their eyes is the oil theft view. Being asked by the Iraqis to leave is like a bank robber being politely asked to leave the premises. The reason for their silence is the struggle between B'ush's desire to shout down the pissant (his view) Iraqis and figuring out how to manage that desire with the elections.

[tmckly]

Let's see, Obama said the surge won't work in Iraq, but he wants to use the same strategy in Afghanistan

[McChimp]

Obama wants to use a surge in Afghanistan where the REAL terrorists and the REAL enemy is... the surge in Iraq is failing because we aren't defeating Al-Qaida.

[independent32955]

the surge was suppose to bring down violence to give political cover to the iraqi government to pass laws that would empower them and their people to take control of their nation.

OF COURSE, the military component of the surge was going to work. Our military has the best fighting capability of any military on this planet, so unless the military TRIED to lose there was no way it was going to happen.

HOWEVER, there was a diplomatic and political component that Bush and his non-military people were in charge of and they have woefully dropped the ball. So, the surge in reality IS a failure, NOT because of the military but because of the president's inability to truly LEAD.

That said, the iraqis have apparently realized that they could coast into an obama presidency and get what they want from America...the US military out of their country. The author is correct, the only people who want this war to continue are bush and mccain.

[DCinFrance]

Yes, outstanding, as was Barak's op ed piece.

But, how gullible are we as a people to bite at the Victory thing? They already claimed victory...long ago...remember Big Banner, Mission Accomplished and all that? PLEASE, would someone--anyone--ask of McCane to DEFINE VICTORY. The Iraqis people NEVER wanted us in their country; being asked to leave is victory?

[metalpipe]

I think there would be a lot of people who would jump at the chance to hide their guilt behind a 'Victory' slogan. It would be so much easier than admitting they had bought into the lies for so long.

[independent32955]

if bush declares victory his dolt supporters will believe him. and bush will, because he needs to try and put some kind of exclamation point on his legacy...of course, the truth is that he will long be remembered as the worst president of in our history, and in 5 years you wont be able to find 5 people who will admit to ever having supported him!

[brighterside]

Once upon a time, there was a bunch of amateurs who built a boat called Noah's ark. Everyone laughed and made fun of Noah and his family. They however weren't laughing when the floods came and devoured them all.

There as also a time when a great many professionals built a wonder of the seven seas and called the Titanic. They deemed this ship to be unsinkable. Of course you all know the ending to this story.

All we need to remember the two stories of Noah's ark and the Titanic.

The floods are now coming and Barack is on solid ground because he exactly knew what was coming despite the criticism and ridicule from the republicans, McCain and even the MSM.

In turn, the Titanic is sinking. McCain and his band of republicans failed to forecast the dangers that lie ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their foreign policy has failed despite being more experienced than Obama.

The moral of the story is to listen to prophet Obama. He knows best when it comes to foreign policy in the middle east.

[InfosolutionWiz]

GREAT ARTICLE MR. WEIGANT!!

AFTER ALL THIS Talk Fro FLIPPER JOHN and BUSH Of How Democrats, Especially Obama, is WILLING to WAIVE the white Flag and Surrender in Iraq, SUDDENLY THEY HAVE EGG ON THERE FACE, BECAUSE MALIKI Thinking Is In Line With Sen. Obama!!!

BOOOYAHHH!!!

[nypoet22]

whoops, that last post was supposed to be a reply to someone below, not a comment on its own.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

nypoet22 -

As Ann Landers used to say (or was it Dear Abby?) -- twenty lashes with a wet noodle for you!

-CW

[nypoet22]

i resent the widespread pooh-poohing of this fallout as a kooky far-left issue. it's not a left-right issue, it's about credibility and trust. perhaps your party loyalty is clouding your perception of the way other people view this. now in spite of mccain's reversal on every position he ever had, the waters are muddied when it comes to credibility. this does not endanger liberal and center-left votes. where it hurts is around the fringes, both among the far-left, centrists AND the libertarians.

libertarians are righty on taxes but lefty on social freedoms. left or right, as a group they tend to vote for the person they trust to keep their word. the left and center-left are pretty much decided already, our votes aren't going to change. but this fisa vote seriously endangers the votes of both lefties and libertarians, as well as crossover center-rights disaffected with bush's lies, and idealists who didn't even vote because they don't like putting energy into politicians who let them down. i am not one of those people. i'm voting for obama regardless. but it does no good to complain about how foolish these other voters might be. they exist, and neither your words nor mine will change that.

[FACINGREALIT]

Obama was ridiculed throughout the debates in the primary regarding his stance on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. For over a year he has stated that we should have timetables for leaving Iraq and that it was time for the Iraq government to take responsibility for their Country. No one wanted to listen for Hillary had experience and McCain had experience and Barack had a speech. The entire time Barack continually tooted the horn of dangers lurking in Afghanistan/Pakistan - the need to set a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq - the need to speak with our friends and our enemies....to no avail.

Fast forwarding - Iraq government wants a timetable for the US to depart their Country and fighting has escalated in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Unbeknownest to many, Bush secretly bombed the exact region in Pakistan that Barack spoke about during the primary that was harboring Al Queda. The Generals on the ground are now saying that they are shorthanded of troops in Afghanistan, where those responsible for 9/11, according to Barack, resides. We lost more service person senseless - all because we've supported a government that would not listen - a government that is headed up by experience - that won't listen to no one but themselves because to leave Iraq w/o that oil is to surrender.

Yet over a year ago, we were told that we should submit a timetable, fighting would escalate in Afghanistan/Pakistan, we could be out in 16 months....and he only had a speech.

[4President]

His judgment has been accurate on much of these matters. One might ask why this has gone uncovered by the media outside of the criticism he had received? He has the superior judgment; nothing against McCain, but America needs a new attitude - direction.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Exactly the most important point (which you've clearly made) Senator Obama is a THINKING MAN, the first one to come down the pike in quite some time. Kudos!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

4President -

I've been railing at the media for a while now at their almost substance-free coverage of the campaign (and Iraq, for that matter).

But I would bet that when the "bridge" agreement is made public both in Iraq and here (probably by the end of the month, their original schedule for the SOFA), the media may pay some attention. Maybe.

-CW

[independent32955]

I truly wonder though if bush will send anyone to Afghanistan...if he does, he's basically admitting that obama was right and mccain wrong.

it will be interesting to see if they put their party above country...I mean they have in every other respect, so I dont expect them to do this any differently...I just wonder what John Q. Public Republican is going to think of a president and candidate who conduct themselves that way.

Oh hell, they'd probably love them even more ... the idiots!

[noneIn2008]

It would be nice to see Obama be as clear as Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=080714_2192,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

"More are hurting while Washington keeps forgetting its promises. "

"Washington should be crystal clear on this very important point " just getting the troops out of Iraq means nothing. Bringing them HOME means everything, and that is what the people in both countries demand."

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

noneIn2008 -

The HuffPost comments-bot doesn't seem to like commas in URLs. As a public service, here's a tinyurl version of the link in the above comment:

http://tinyurl.com/6ewych

You're welcome.

-CW

[lovethesinner]

I agree, the framing of Iraq is critical. Just today I saw several Republican surrogates suggesting that "the surge worked, and we are WINNING the war in Iraq". You are absolutely right, the GOP is getting ready to declare "VICTORY."

This is false. The goals of political reconciliation, oil revenue sharing, Sunni participation, hasn't been met, and the reason for that is BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO LEAVE.

In order to WIN we must REMOVE the troops so Maliki can have the opportunity to TAKE CONTROL. This is actually why they want us to leave.

As long as were there, the only thing the Iraqis can agree on is that THE U.S. NEEDS TO LEAVE.

FRAME: We are leaving Iraq to allow the Iraqi's to ACHIEVE their own VICTORY, because the Bush-McCain strategy of A U.S. VICTORY is failing to achieve its goals.

[Bobrobert]

ROFLMAO

LIfe is fun and elections bring out the best in folks.

Remember to vote all.

:-)

Keep our troops in your prayers everyone.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Yeah... Like You said, Senator Obama was the Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week, "Friday" today in His Op-ed He is a pretty sharp guy.
Hummm, I'm surprised to see how much you've learned over the weekend.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

GOP4MoreTears -

[Great screen name, by the way.]

Hey, it's a new week! Obama starting off with this editorial was a pretty impressive beginning, what can I say? Sharp guys can still occasionally be disappointing...

-CW

[nypoet22]

"Democracy means listening to your own people"

This is a super talking point, and bears frequent repeating. Especially regarding the inability of Bush or McCain to listen ever, regarding iraq, taxes, healthcare, energy or anything else for that matter. But also regarding Obama's failure to listen to the groundshattering earthquake right underneath him when he went back on his word over over the telecom immunity in FISA. (an issue that spans far across the libertarian spectrum.) Obama deserves props for actually listening, but apparently he didn't really hear.

Today I watched Chris Matthews fumble and bumble with questions about why Obama's lead over McCain has narrowed so much over the past few weeks. Every cliche MSM talking point was re-hashed, but nobody commented on the rhinoceros in the room: The main fear people have about politicians is not any specific policy, it's that they can't be trusted, that they'll go back on their promises. It's not exactly brain surgery, but nobody seems willing to connect the dots between FISA and Obama's drop in the polls.

[Gma11]

Baloney. I've voted for every Democratic campaigning for president since Johnson, and this is just pure baloney. Not every Dem is on the far left. Some of us choose to balance rights and security. And realize we need to wait a few months for a Dem president and Dem majority in Congress before we can further progress on the "rights" platform.

It's called strategy - and it's not a matter of just politics it's a fact of life in the real world.

[nypoet22]

i resent the widespread pooh-poohing of this fallout as a kooky far-left issue. it's not a left-right issue, it's about credibility and trust. perhaps your party loyalty is clouding your perception of the way other people view this. now in spite of mccain's reversal on every position he ever had, the waters are muddied when it comes to credibility. this does not endanger liberal and center-left votes. where it hurts is around the fringes, both among the far-left, centrists AND the libertarians.

libertarians are righty on taxes but lefty on social freedoms. left or right, as a group they tend to vote for the person they trust to keep their word. the left and center-left are pretty much decided already, our votes aren't going to change. but this fisa vote seriously endangers the votes of both lefties and libertarians, as well as crossover center-rights disaffected with bush's lies, and idealists who didn't even vote because they don't like putting energy into politicians who let them down. i am not one of those people. i'm voting for obama regardless. but it does no good to complain about how foolish these other voters might be. they exist, and neither your words nor mine will change that.