Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... 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. 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.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

Comments

[abigail1]

it should be a huge blow, but on the nytimes website this morning, nothing. no problem for mccain gets any play, not the gramm gaffe, not his lack of an economic or energy plan, not nothing.

[JohnnyBoyyy]

YES!!!! Even a McSame fan will have to consider how powerful Mr. Obama's charisma and well executed planning will be showcased on his Middle East and European trip this week. This is how an American President can start to repair our reputation in the world and bring greatness back to the office.

As the new President of the United States, Mr Obama will have A VERY BIG MEAN TIGER by the tail as he and his administration work to solve some of the worst problems our nation has ever had to confront since World War II. We have an energy crisis that destroys millions of hard working families that continue to slide down the ladder to poverty and stifles once great American institutions.

Each year we send hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars other nations to quench our thirst for oil to support our waste and lifestyle. And some of these oil rich nation's leaders openly express hate for all we represent EXCEPT OUR BORROWED MONEY that pays for their kingdoms. Remember when the thought was that what was good for GM was good for America? GM stock is now trading at $13 a share.

American "leadership" has been asleep at the wheel, and time is running out fast. How could we allow these arrogant, out of touch, influence peddling leaders of the past 16 years do nothing about the monumental problems Mr. Obama must face?

OBAMA - JUDGMENT TO LEAD!

[GuyBlaise]

Senator Obama should take the Iraqi prime minister endorcement with reserve.The withdrawal of the US troops in Iraq can also lead to chaos, Shiites and Sunnis will continu to kill each other and the destruction will continu. Like the Massai of Kenya say "When two elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers the most"
guy

[SShaw490]

That's a possibility. But how long can America stay there - at a cost of 400 or so American lives per year, $150 billion dollars per year and a deployment that hamstrings our ability to deal with other problems in the world? America has given the Iraqi people an opportunity for a free, stable and representative society and government - if the Iraqis choose violence and mayhem, then that's what they'll get.

Self determination is the key - we've given it to the Iraqi people, and we bought it with blood and treasure. If they squander it, then that's on their own heads.

[SShaw490]

So with Obama having won the policy debate over Iraq - and with both Bush and McCain trying to inch their own policies toward Obama's without looking like that's what they're doing - and with McCain agreeing with Obama that we need to reinforce Afghanistan to get the Taliban out of there and maybe even find Bin Laden (remember him?) - with Bush and McCain trying to ease Barack's way, what remaining foreign policy differences remain?

Well, there's Iran - Obama favors economic and political pressure from a strong international coalition and McCain wants to go to war, which will be even less successful than Iraq and will unquestionably cause oil supply disruptions in the Persian Gulf and throw the US economy over the cliff into a geniune depression. Even Bush is trying to move Obama's way and trying to negotiate with Iran (he will fail because he doesn't have strong international support). So even Bush is smarter than McCain on Iran.

So, with so many of his political enemies grudgingly lining up behind him, what can we say about Obama? What do we call a guy who has followers? Oh, yeah - a leader.

[NoBo08]

It is truly amazing how fast the media is to publish any story favorable to Barry and how slow they are to print corrections to the same story when said corrections reveal their bias.

[allonfla]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/19/224359/002/167/554100

[CTmom13]

Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html

[MaryanneAZ]

Everyone seems to forget that most Germans and Maliki are fluent in English. I cannot imagine that the interview was conducted in either the interviewer's or Maliki's natural language since they are different. I suspect the interview was conducted in English. If it was not, I would imagine that any interpretation was not made by one of the housemaids who happens to speak the language of the interviewee. Let's get serious. I believe that Maliki said what was reported and meant it, but got a fierce and urgent phone call from Bush when he got back to Iraq telling him he'd better toe the line or else. Hence the semi-retraction.

[SShaw490]

Maliki didn't retract. He said he didn't want to imply an endorsement of Obama as a candidate - but he did stand by his assessment that the short time frame being proposed by Obama was consistent with his and the Iraqi people's wishes.

[cheforacle]

No I think McCain is lucky the press spends more time watching Obama. If they paid more attention and gave more scrutiny to McCain, his campaign would be finished.. He repeatedly makes several gaffes, any one of which, if made by Obama, would receive great attention. The press is giving McCain a huge gift by not covering him with the scrutiny they cover Obama.

[JohnTalbutt]

Iraqis no more support a foreign occupation than we would.

Those who have been risking their lives through armed resistance to the occupation are puting aside their arms to wait. At the same time the heretofore docile government which came into power under our control has the courage to honestly express the will of the people.

It is Obama's candidacy and not the surge that has created this window. But if others want to credit the surge for it great. Let's just agree to take advantage of it and withdraw.

[Herrington]

The Sunnis have rejoined the Iraqi government after a year long boycot. Some settlement must have been reached that our MSM does not deem important enough to report, or, they haven't got a clue, or, it is not to their liking. Take your pick.

Maliki has obviously consolidated enough power to assure his tneure in office. With the entire damned country trying to throw us out for 5+ years and him needing us to be there to hold the government together, something has changed. I strongly suspect that the military cooperation pact that he was offered by Bush did not match the one he got from Iran. So,dealing from a position of security, he was able to cut some deals with the Sunni.

If it indeed does make the MSM reporting cycle, it does have the appearance of validating Obama. It, just like Obama's assertion that attacking targets inside Pakistan was a good idea, comes in a seeming landslide of capitulation to reason by the erstwhile reasoning challenged Bush administration. Now we are negotiating with the "terrorist" Iran? What next? Will Bush impeach himself? Whoa cowboy, better fire Cheney first.

[Krikkit]

The biggest political issue keeping the Sunnis out was how the oil revenues would be administered. A google search would probably turn up a settlement on that issue.

[Gma11]

Oh, this is rich!
"The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition."

But I suppose they will have to now that the Bush administration sent out all those e-mails to the press about it!

[Trittydi]

A time-line H O R I Z O N?

Every get into your car and try to drive to the horizon? Never quite got there? did you?
*

[genia]

It should be major...but I don't know how it possibly will be. No one in the MSM will bring it up. We'll see.

Our local NBC affiliate here in Philly opened the 11pm broadcast with some local happenings....and then.... covered McCain's appearance on Conan last night...showed the footage....THEN....the voice over said something about McCain approving of Obama's trip to Iraq, it was long overdue and that McClain claimed that it showed Obama to be inexperienced and ...something...(whatever)
.
I saw no footage of Obama, his trip....Afghanistan...or anything.

[williamg]

I don't know, I have seen it talked about, alot, on CNN and MSNBC, and it was the main story on the local news, here in Los Angeles. It's a big deal -- a game-changer.

[Danigirl65]

It was reported in our local news in Rockford, Illinois as well. I was hoping it would go mainstream and, with the talking heads tomorrow morning, it may hold up. Let's keep our fingers crossed - this is BIG!!!

[BarackstarObama]

I disagree... the endorsement is a big win for the Barackstar. :)

[43P04T34]

Send the bill for the cost of withdrawing the troops to George Bush.

[LizM]

I wouldn't get too overly excited about the news that Maliki may support a relatively timely withdrawal of US forces if I were you because it pretty much entirely misses the point.

Unless you include yourself among those who conflate a withdrawal of US forces with an end to the civil war in Iraq, then it may be a better use of your time and energy to find out why Obama, McCain and Maliki don't have anything to say about what will be required to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq that would allow US forces to withdraw without leaving a failed state behind and, quite possibly, total fragmentation of the country.

If a political solution doesn't matter to you, then a complete and total withdrawal of US forces and civilians (say good-bye to that monstrosity known as the US Embassy in Baghdad...no great loss, by the way) that could be completed yesterday wouldn't be soon enough!

[Krikkit]

If you want answers to the suppostions you've put forward, go to USIP.org and check out the work that is being done in Iraq.

Iraq is not a failed state, far from it. It has a functioning government. It isn't perfect, but it isn't teetering on the verge of collapse either.

[LizM]

Krikkit,

I am aware of the good work USIP is doing in Iraq and throughout the world. Please see my response to your post in Chris Weigant's blog post here at HP. I hope we can continue our discussion there!

Iraq is not a failed state now, nor is the government on the verge of collapse...though, that may be part of the problem, too! Anyway, Iraq is certainly on a path toward that outcome absent a serious and muscular diplomatic effort of the kind that is well beyond the scope and capacity of organizations like USIP and other groups involved in conflict resolution.

Here's this link to Chris Weigants blog post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/war-is-over-if-maliki-wan_b_113174.html

[MaryanneAZ]

Americans had been led to believe that Iraq is a third world country with no resources. Iraq is a literate, oil rich, agriculturally rich, historically rich and culturally rich nation. The U.S. went in to kill Saddam and change his nationalized oil policy and used a "war" to accomplish that goal. The country of Iraq is not a third world nation who needs U.S. help or resources to govern itself and live peacefully and successfully among its neighbors. Once they solve their political differences, which we cannot do for them, then they have everything they need as a country to succeed. We need to get out of there tomorrow and let the Iraqis take care of their own country and problems. Obama '08

[swift goat pet for truth]

Well, it would be a huge blow if Corporate Media gave it any play.

And if Americans were interested enough to pay attention. For 5 seconds.

[Atticus]

Maliki is clearly in favor of an Obama presidency because of the widespread perceived stumbling inexperience he is viewed with. Obviously, Barack can be manipulated, at least until he climbs the learning curve in about 2 or 3 years.

Obama's handlers should be VERY VERY cautious about accepting pleasant sounding platitudes from a foreign leader who is favored by the Iranian mullahs. The mullahs and other militant muslims clearly don't want to face an tough military president like McCain...

[swift goat pet for truth]

Many CONSERVATIVE analysts think that American presence in Iraq CAUSES instability.

Former National Security Agency Director (under Reagan) Lt. General William Odom comes to mind.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Odom%2C+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search

Take your choice.

[jeg]

Yeah. John McCain is such a tough military president, he's still trying to win the Vietnam war.

Until John McCain can satisfactorily answer the remaining questions from the Powell Doctrine, I'm not sure I give him much credit as a commanding officer.

For that matter, had the Navy given him credit for being a good commanding officer, he'd be an Admiral, not a Senator.