Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to make headlines by posing as an Iraqi nationalist. Don't buy it.
Unfortunately, much of the media has swallowed Maliki's posturing without questioning it. The usually astute Leila Fadel, writing for McClatchy, has an article today headlined: "Maliki Demands 'Specific Deadline' for US Troop Pullout," which says:
Maliki said that the United States and Iraq had agreed that all foreign troops would be off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. "There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.
Other newspapers and electronic media pick up Maliki's statement that Iraq wants all US forces out, not just combat troops. The Times headlines its story: "Maliki Pushes for Troop Withdrawal Date," and it barely questions Maliki's sincerity, though it does glancingly take note of the nationalist pressure on the Iraqi leader, reporting that "graffiti can be seen on the walls in Shiite districts of Baghdad saying, 'Iraq for sale: See Maliki.'" The Post headline ("Maliki Demands All U.S. Troops Pull Out by 2011") says as much, too, portraying Maliki as resolute and unyielding in talks with the United States over a security accord.
But underneath the radar, the Iraqi government and Maliki are sending another signal. The Post makes a greater effort to report the real story, making clear that the tough stand by Maliki is political showmanship designed to play to a nationalist Iraqi public that is tired of the US occupation:
Underlying Maliki's remarks is the political reality that he must sell the accord to a fractious political establishment and the Iraqi public, which to a large extent views the U.S. military presence as an occupation that should end as soon as possible."The agreement will be met with significant public discomfort," said an aide to Maliki. "So Iraqi officials will resort to using the dates mentioned in the agreement to sell it to the public, even though they might be intended to be used in a guidance way."
Note the reference to Maliki's need to "sell it to the public," even though the 2011 date will be used only as "guidance."
The reality is that there isn't much daylight between the Bush administration's position, which says that US forces will stay in Iraq until "conditions" allow a withdrawal, and Maliki's proposed 2011 date. Iraqi officials are making it clear that even the 2011 date is flexible and subject to conditions-based reevaluation. The Post quotes an Iraqi official: "If you ask the prime minister, 'What happens if the situation on the ground changes before 2011?' then he would obviously say that the dates might need to be changed."
Of course, that's equally true of Barack Obama's Iraq policy, though Obama (like Maliki) would suffer enormously from the domestic political reaction if he wavered on his commitment to withdraw US forces.
RSS
After literally YEARS of calling any withdrawal plan "cut and running"...and always making their withdrawal plan vague...
before November 4th, I'll bet you see Bush AND McCain endorse an "Obama-Plus Plan"...tacking on maybe 6 more months and claiming "Well, 'conditions on the ground' HAVE improved (miraculously in time for the election) and now we CAN support a withdrawl remarkably similar to Senator Obama's plan!"
And not a "stay until victory" neo-con here will see any contradictions in what they've been saying for the past months.
Or atleast they won't ADMIT it!!!!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 1:34pm
>>>The reality is that there isn't much daylight between the Bush administration's position, which says that US forces will stay in Iraq until "conditions" allow a withdrawal, and Maliki's proposed 2011 date. <<<
This is not correct.
The Bush Administration has ALWAYS opposed a time-line for withdrawal! According to Bush, "if the terrorists know we will withdraw on a date certain, they will simply wait until we withdraw and then declare victory".
Maliki's position is actually closer to Obama's than that of Bush, and unlike the Washington Post report that you cite, the Iraqi people have been tired of US occupation for YEARS, as this is not a "recent" sentiment at all.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/26/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 1:34pm
Victory is always achieved when it is best for the election season.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2008 @ 3:33pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2008 @ 3:33pm
Yes. PONTI gave us a heads-up weeks ago.
As a ardent follower of the Right-Wing spin, he started in with "We've WON in Iraq!"
When pressed on "Well, then why can't we leave?" He went to "Well, there are still a few conditions that need to be met!"
The secret code being "as soon as the polls show McCain needs to switch from 'victory' to 'I support a pull-out by 2011'"...
which is EXACTLY what he'll do right after the GOP Convention and throwing red meat to the LVLB "Nuke 'em now" Crowd....he'll swing to a 2011 pull-out date.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 4:11pm
The FBI has foiled a plot to kill the Democratic nominee for President. Several reports say the men involved have links to white supremacist groups.
That should be enough for the neo-cons to declare war on the white supremacists! this should be the end of their right to fair trials, an end to their ability to phone each other and they should be shot on sight, questions to be asked later.
If I understand the Bush Doctrine correctly.
What do the neo-cons think? Is it total war on the KKK and related groups, or is it just brown/Muslim/hijab wearers that get you so frightened but "Merican terrorists get a free ride like they have since Eric Rudolph and Tim McVeigh appeared on the scene?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/26/2008 @ 5:02pm
About the only thing ordinary people can do is keep the pressure on whoever wins the election to get out of Iraq. Four more years of this trash will kill both of the major political parties. Lou Dobbs doesn't know much, but he had it right when he said that the Republican party is wholly owned by big business, and they have a controlling interest in the Democratic Party. The few of us they don't own will be looking for new political parties.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/26/2008 @ 5:26pm
Contrary to Mask and other anti-war types, things in Iraq are dramatically better.
US casualties are averaging 30.7 per month for the past 11 months. Injuries are down by 50%.
Iraq casualties are down by 2/3 this year and this month they are at their lowest since the war began.
Bush's campaign is successful in Iraq. However the left will never admit it. They only like to see the US lose.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/26/2008 @ 6:24pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/26/2008 @ 6:24pm
If we've won...we can leave, right, LL?
Let me guess...you'll have NO problem with a 2011 pull-out date...NOW...will you?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 8:19pm
Bush's campaign is successful in Iraq. However the left will never admit it. They only like to see the US lose. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/26/2008 @ 6:24pm
Funny coming from someone who is so dogmatic they can never a speak a good word of anyone on the left.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2008 @ 8:20pm
If we've won...we can leave, right, LL?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/26/2008 @ 8:19pm
You don't seem to have improved your comprehension skills Mask. Liberty said, quoting some relevant stats, that things are improving.
Ponti's opinion is that the war is won. To ,including a substantial number of former surge ,the war is in the process of being won. The fact that Maliki has had various military successes such as Basra and Sadr City, indicates Ponti's won is a lot closer to the on ground reality than your implicit but evidentially inaccurate "losing".
If you took the time to read Obama's policy on Iraq (see below) you would notice that it also is hedged with caveats thus making it similar to Bush's policy.
RESPONSIBLE, PHASED WITHDRAWAL
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/27/2008 @ 08:59am
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/27/2008 @ 08:59am
para 2 should read
Ponti's opinion is that the war is won. To many ,including a substantial number of former surge sceptics , the war is in the process of being won.
(I've noticed time and again that some of you, Mask included, have a black and white, fundamentalist, frozen-in-time mentality. The Iraq conflict is a dynamic process and one needs to be a little more up to date and observant rather than repeating years old ideological orthodoxies that are likely to be irrelevant to the present situation in Iraq).
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/27/2008 @ 09:19am
LRJONES,
PONTI wants the war to be "won" (past tense) because he KNOWS (as I think LL does too) that McCain will HAVE to support some withdrawal plan...one WELL AHEAD of his "January 2013" one.
More like Obama's and al-Maliki's.
McCain is doing more than "hedging with caveats"...he's RAPIDLY collapsed from "No withdrawal until victory"..."100 year 'presence'"....to "I'll have won it by the end of my first term in January 2013"....to (screwing up) agreeing that a "16 month" timetable was feasible on Stephanopolous a few weeks ago (and then quickly walking it back, when he realized YOU guys on the Right would get pissed at him "going maverick on 'cutting and running'")
Again, wait for the end of NEXT week...after he's thrown enough red meat to the Right at the Convention....and he starts the General Election campaign.
Assuredly..."conditions on the ground" will have so "amazingly and unexpected improved"...that McCain will back a 2011 pull-out (nearly 2 years earlier than his previous statements and 6 months away from the Obama Plan!)
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/27/2008 @ 09:22am
Mask,
If the situation is dynamic (and the unexpected improvement in the competence of the Iraq military is but one measure of that) then not only has Obama been proved wrong about the impact of the surge and in fact also his "sectarian diagnosis" but Mc Cain also is at risk of not being relevant if he fails to keep up with the rate of progress in the overall Iraq situation.
I would suggest the prime qualification in the Bush doctrine for withdrawing from Iraq is to do so only when the Iraq military is well trained and strong enough to provide acceptable security and the ability to deal with insurgents of all stripes. It seemed, no long ago that would need a long term commitment from the US military.
At the beginning of the surge my guess was that years would be required for Iraq to get to the position it now finds itself in militarily. (Some of us learn from our mistakes).
I accept that you are likely to understand American voters better than I do but my observation is that the election of your president is less about "ideology" and policy and more about personality.
Surprisingly, because of Bush's negatives in this respect,"warrior" McCain I sense has it all over Obama and McCain's tough approach on Iraq, even if somewhat irrelevant, is likely to score him more votes than Obama who talks more like a "dove" but whose Iraq policy, on examination, is not all that far from the so-called neo-cons.
If Obama loses the election it is more likely that it will be on the perception of what sort of person he is rather than his policy position, particularly on Iraq.
One still needs to ask why Bush won so convincingly in 04. Is it not that American voters responded to their need for a warrior president? If that is so it augers well for McCain despite Iraq.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/27/2008 @ 11:54am
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/27/2008 @ 11:54am
nothing like fear to make people stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2008 @ 10:27pm