Weekend Roundup: Obama, Afghanistan and the Maliki Non-Denial

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s appeared to be doing everything he could do this weekend to give his statements advocating a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal maximum exposure. Just days before Obama’s trip to Iraq, Maliki must have known that the American press would be covering Iraq in greater detail than usual and that the Prime Minister's endorsement of Obama’s plan would work also its way into every article written about Obama’s travel to Afghanistan.

Maliki’s office drew additional press in stating that the Prime Minister's comments had not been reported accurately in Der Spiegel, where they first appeared, but the statement gave no details -- no mention of where the "inaccuracies" occurred, ensuring a second-round of stories about Maliki’s "nondenial" and a second round of reports that Maliki had indeed said what people thought he had said.

It is hard to believe that Maliki did not have some hope of influencing American politics and of directing domestic debate on withdrawal. Maliki is in a uniquely powerful position to influence the positions of Bush, McCain and Obama at a time when all three American politicians have to be especially attentive to public opinion and defend their positions on the U.S. mission in Iraq more specifically than they have in the past.

As the AP explains in a detailed analysis of the situation, Maliki has already succeeded at forcing a shift at the White House -- the Administration now accepting the idea of a “time horizon” -- notice how desperate the White House remains to not use the word “timetable.” In that context, it will get increasingly difficult for McCain to keep up his dire warnings of impending doom if America withdraws from Iraq. Not only will he face Democratic criticism, but his policy is now running contrary to that of the White House and is disrespecting the wishes of an Iraqi government the US is doing its best to legitimize as sovereign.

Aware of this predicament, the McCain campaign found an ally today: Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mullen declared when asked about the consequences of a withdrawal within two years that it could be “very dangerous:” “I’d worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability.” Desperate to get any support for its candidate’s position, the McCain campaign was quick to blast Mullen’s comments out in a statement:

Today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest ranking officer, made clear that he believes such an approach could be ‘very dangerous.’ Admiral Mullen further added that his view is shared by U.S. commanders in Iraq, who are ‘adamant about continuing progress, about making decisions based on what’s actually happening in the battle space.’ Barack Obama says he wants a ’safe and responsible’ withdrawal from Iraq, but is stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders, the success of our troops, and the security of the American people.

Joe Lieberman also rushed to McCain’s rescue, echoing the talking-point the campaign first responded with yesterday, namely that the success of (McCain’s) surge is the only reason we can even talk of withdrawal today. Lieberman declared today,

If Barack Obama’s policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn’t be in Iraq today, is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat, and that would mean, today, al Qaeda would be in charge of parts of Iraq, Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There’d be civil war and, maybe, even genocide.

Again, this is the very argument that is undermined by Maliki’s support for withdrawal. The Iraqi Prime Minister’s stakes are as high if not higher in seeing his own country not fall into utter chaos and civil war, making it difficult for Republicans to argue that the position he has endorsed would do just that. But the McCain campaign is determined to not yield an inch on this issue and launched its surrogates and relied on army commanders to relay that message.

Meanwhile, Obama spent his second day in Afghanistan, where he met with President Hmid Karzai. Given how little Afghanistan is covered in the American media, it is quite a shift to see the increased coverage that the country’s deteriorating condition is receiving while Obama is there. It might seem counter-intuitive that a Democrat is trying to expand the national security debate beyond Iraq and onto the broader war on terror, as the contrary dynamic has been prevalent over the past few years. In 2004 and 2006, voters who said they cared about Iraq tended to vote Democratic, those who said they cared about terrorism tended to vote Republican.

But in 2008, a central part of Obama’s foreign policy argument is that the war on Iraq is spreading American troops thin and is proving a distraction from other vital efforts, including that in Afghanistan. And any increased coverage of that country and of the fact that Bin Laden is still loose is welcome news for Democrats that are frustrated that more has not been made of that over the past few years. Lieberman also sought to address this question today, as he declared: “You can’t choose, as Sen. Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan. The reality is, if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we — we would go to Afghanistan as losers.”

The problem for the McCain campaign is that Obama’s trip has been perfectly choreographed for now and that, four years after the late October Bin Laden video appeared to help Bush get a last-minute advantage over Kerry, a major outside event has shifted the foreign policy debate in Obama’s direction.

Comments

[booker52]

My question why did they call it a surge, why not just call it an escalation??? Jerks, now instead of just calling it a timeline for withdrawal this WH is calling it Horizon. Well you will never get to the horizon. And with this never ending war and it's changing end goals we would never leave. I think the Iraq government has different ideas and that is for us to leave in 2010.

[Sixtwo]

The Republicans is a Party of confusion and double talk. IF THE SURGE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL, WHY ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ? THE SAME NUMBER OF TROOPS ARE NOW IN IRAQ THAT WERE SENT THERE AS "THE SURGE"! The Repubs said, more than once that if the surge initiative was successful and the Iraquis asked us to leave, we would to leave!!!!!!! So, what are they waiting for? Why won't they set a timetable for leaving since they say, again, that the "MISSIION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLSHED? GOD PLEASE SAVE AMERICA!

[swift goat pet for truth]

I love these "could be" statements.

"Could be dangerous".
"Could be not dangerous".
"Could be the Queen of the May."

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Whether Maliki agrees with Obama, or with McCain, or Bush, etc., its hard to forget how frequently the tail wagged the dog in Viet Nam, which only seemed to delay the inevitable. Lets not have the same result in Iraq by placing undue emphasis on what Iraq's politicians are saying now.

[osage]

BUSH AND MCCAIN ARE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN!

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki"s comments by The Times: "Obama"s remarks that " if he takes office " in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Maliki agreed with Obama's timeframe by actually mentioning that it was "16 months". He even goes further by stating that the "better assessment of the situation in Iraq" is the one "who wants to exit in a quicker way". Obama is the one who "wants to exit in a quicker way". Exiting in a "quicker way" has never been something that John McCain or George W. Bush has advocated. Only Barrack Obama has advocated that!

[MissingAmerica]

The General would worry about creating instability where there is "stability"? Isn't that what we did?! These guys must have long-term memory loss!

[Garvagh]

Joe Lieberman and John McCain both regard the giving effect to the wishes of the great majority of Iraqis, as "defeat"! For them, "victory" comes from ignoring the wishes of the electorate, while of course they trumpet the success of the effort to bring democracy to Iraq!

At least 70% of Iraqis say their country will be as stable, if not more so, if the US withdraws all of its military forces as soon as possible.

The big oil companies do not need milti-billion dollar subsidies from the American taxpayer so they can do business in Iraq.

[BinBaldwin]

Obama said all troops should be withdrawn by the end of 2007
Then he said all troops should be withdrawn by March 2008
Then he said by the end of 2008
Now he said 16 Months which is the end of 2009

Even a Broken Clock is right twice a Day

[FloridaShutterBug]

Uh...

I wouldn't worry too much about your broken clock; I'd be more concerned about your broken calendar and your broken Google.

Please cite speeches - times, dates, places, etc., where Obama said any of what you claim. I've followed his campaign very closely and can state conclusively that all of your claims except the last one about the clock are pure hogwash.

Next time you might want to try something that has a modicum of truth in it somewhere. I've heard that makes it much more believable.

[Thron]

If this was a chess game and I was Obama, Iran didn't exist and the Bush administration wasn't so ardently involved. I would say, " it's good to share the same strategy mister Maliki".
But No! This is a game of the enemy of my enemies is my friend. We have convenient agreements and temporal mutual goals, which happens to sit well together.
Maliki is a Shiite. We should never forget it...