Maliki: Timetable; Bush: Time Horizon
Filed under: General News — Michael Merritt on July 19, 2008 @ 8:42 pm CEST
In probably one of the most stunning reversals of Bush administration policy, the President has accepted a “general time horizon” for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. This comes at about the time time that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki backed Barack Obama’s 16-month plan for troop withdrawal.
The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe.
But the White House statement said that the two leaders “agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”
And from al-Maliki:
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.
According to the NYTimes article, Bush says this is merely a plan for return of Iraqi control, but I’m not so sure. Frankly, “time horizon” is about the worst phrase you could use if you’re actually talking about something else than a withdrawal. There’s a million other things out there that make more sense. “Strategic Plan for Restoration of Iraqi Control” is one I just came up with off the top of my head! You don’t fight off somebody who’s been calling for withdrawals for over a year by naming your plan similar to his! So, is Bush’s plan really just return of Iraqi control or something more?
I’m willing to bet it’s something more. Bush is afraid for his legacy at this point. Even with successes brought on by the surge (and agreements by clerics not to attack or collaborate with Al-Queda). I think Bush wants to be seen as the president who began the ending of the war. A big “haha, it was me, not you” in the face of the next president.
Personally, I think most telling in Bush’s plans are what is does not do:
The administration dropped a promise in that initial agreement to provide long-term security for Iraq, something that would require a treaty and Congressional approval. It has also backed off other demands for sweeping powers to continue military operations there indefinitely.
…
Administration officials now say that they are negotiating an agreement that would establish the legal authority for American commanders to conduct combat operations, control airspace and detain Iraqi prisoners, while deferring the more complicated details of a “status of forces agreement” to the next administration.
And therein lies the problem, I believe, for John McCain. He supports the president, of course:
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, praised the agreement as evidence that Mr. Bush’s strategy of sending additional forces last year had worked and he sought to use it as a cudgel against Mr. Obama.
“An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat,” Mr. McCain said.
That may be true, but consider that until very recently, Bush has considered the idea of a timetable to be dangerous. He’s still not calling it a timetable, true, but calling it a “time horizon” is like trying trying to use a homonym where an antonym would be better.
Then there’s Al-Maliki’s support for Obama’s 16-month plan. Maliki first suggested support for a timetable a couple weeks ago, and then kind of backed off a bit. Now he’s back again with a more specific demand.
I think Maliki’s statements plus the reveal of this new plan by Bush, that despite their claims, really does sound like a plan for eventual withdrawal, is going to have the McCain campaign scrambling for a way to put their spin on it. The question now is whether McCain will prevail in saying, “see, I told you the surge would eventually lead to this” or if Obama will be able to say, “see, even the President is looking to withdrawal.”
1 Chris
July 19, 2008 @ 9:16 pm CESTDidn’t we all know that if the surge went well there would be a point at which the Bush administration discussed a "process" of withdrawal. With the negotiations on the troop agreement that became more obvious. Shouldn’t this be a point where we can all be happy that a successful surge has lead to a plan for troop withdrawal. Unfortunately in this political year good news is bad news
2 Michael Merritt
July 19, 2008 @ 9:30 pm CESTYea, but when you keep saying that a timetabled troop withdrawal is dangerous, and then name your plan like this, it will have people wondering what your message really is.
3 Chris
July 19, 2008 @ 11:32 pm CESTI don’t know it seems that we all are less concerned about getting out of Iraq with a halfway decent quasi democratic government. It seems that if it "ends" well we’ll have arguments over who (if anyone) can take credit. If it ends poorly well all work hard to figure out who to blame.
4 [Análise/opinião] 19 Julho « A Vila de Potemkin
July 20, 2008 @ 12:20 am CEST[…] Maliki: Timetable; Bush: Time Horizon Michael Merritt, PoliGazette […]
5 Jonathan Wilson
July 20, 2008 @ 1:02 am CESTI don’t want the US to pull out of Iraq. Unless you believe the military’s purpose is to sit home and twiddle its thumbs. We should be all over the Middle East fighting terrorism.
If you have trouble logically calculating whether it is a good idea to withdraw or not. I’d like you to try something:
Close your eyes and imagine that you are the leader of Al Qaeda. You are currently fighting battles in Iraq and your men are discouraged and have been having trouble getting recruits. What do you believe you should do to win?
If the answer to that question doesn’t come up as "If only the US would withdraw its troops", then you really need to repeat this and do some more critical thinking.
6 Michael Merritt
July 20, 2008 @ 2:00 am CESTOh, no doubt that Al-Quaeda thinks that by biding their time they can retake control. It would definitely be the true test of the military and Maliki government to take them down again.
7 utsu
July 20, 2008 @ 10:40 am CESTAQ’s first priority was to get the US bogged down in the first place. IF bin Laden’s current crop of Islam-perverting scum died they would do so with a hymen-popping smile on their face, and any losses at that moment would lead to new recruits. That, I think, was their plan, to turn the US into the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. However, those scumbags are being rejected now, which is very pleasing.
Anyway, I truly love how people now will have difficulty saying that Obama is naive or inexperinced without coloring flip-flopping W with the same words. This is really cool and a boon to those who want this sad little mulligan-mulligan-mulligan war to end.
8 Interested
July 20, 2008 @ 11:12 am CESTSo you actually expect that Obama will end the war? He’s already saying 16 months out. I’d love to see how those rose-colored glasses fit.
9 utsu
July 20, 2008 @ 11:46 am CEST"So you actually expect that Obama will end the war?"
That’s not my main priority - my desire is to see the war cleansed of contractors, mercenaries and neo-liberal fantasies about privatization and cheap oil. Once that has happened I’m more concerned about other things. I’m just saying that Maliki’s desire to throw the US out sooner or later is heartening - Maliki knows what the Iraqis want from their leader, and the US can’t denigrate him without denigrating the Iraqis. Even McCain is flip-flo - I mean straight-talking his way closer to talking about timeframes without leaving such a discussion for later. W as well. Everybody wins except the far-wingers who have made their silly position the holy grail.
10 Interested
July 20, 2008 @ 12:38 pm CESTMaliki’s response is due to political survivability, he’s walking a line to get stability for his position he does not want to lose from every possible direction.
11 utsu
July 20, 2008 @ 9:14 pm CEST"Maliki’s response is due to political survivability"
Well, he answers to the Iraqi people.
12 Chris
July 21, 2008 @ 5:36 am CEST"my desire is to see the war cleansed of contractors, mercenaries and neo-liberal fantasies about privatization and cheap oil."
OK I’ll bite utsu. So what does your idealized war look like?
13 Jonathan Wilson
July 21, 2008 @ 5:53 am CESTI think you’re having delusions.
Wrong, Maliki knows what the Shiites in Iraq want, he is a Shiite after all. And usually they want America out.
No they won’t. Look how easy it is:
Barack Obama is inexperienced and he’s naive!
Barack Obama thinks flip-flopping on Iraq is going to work on the American public. Before in 2007 and beginning of 2008 he was saying 16 month withdrawals and that American troops should get out immediately, now he’s saying that they would leave "teams of counter-terrorist units" sounds like he’s saying the Army will stay.
Before he was saying that the Surge in Iraq was a failure and would never work, and now he’s saying "[The Surge has indeed worked thanks to our troops]"
Face it, Barack Obama is a flip-flopper.
14 utsu
July 21, 2008 @ 11:57 am CEST"OK I’ll bite utsu. So what does your idealized war look like?"
It follows international agreements and allows the people control of their own utilities and infrastructure, with no sly privatization and contractors. Oh, and the war is justified in the first place.
"Before in 2007 and beginning of 2008 he was saying 16 month withdrawals"
He is saying that now as well.
"now he’s saying that they would leave "teams of counter-terrorist units" sounds like he’s saying the Army will stay."
Are these teams a regular army in any way. Teams are specialized and operate differently. Changing your mind is good in some ways - rather than changing the time for withdrawal he is letting some elements stay to deal with the most probable problem of Iraqi society after withdrawal.
"Face it, Barack Obama is a flip-flopper."
"Before he was saying that the Surge in Iraq was a failure and would never work, and now he’s saying "[The Surge has indeed worked thanks to our troops]""
Point.
Face it, McCain is a worse flip-flopper and much more to boot.
15 Selin
July 21, 2008 @ 12:45 pm CESTUtsu, I think the problem here is your assumption that Maliki IS the president of all Iraqi people but he is NOT. In fact, he exerts very little influence on Iraq and what goes on the ground there.
Maliki does not, in any way or form, answer to the Iraqi people. He is a puppet leader that’s been put at the head of a nation that’s still not a nation. He is a Shiite, and we know there are at least 3 other ethnic groups there who don’t give a damn as to what a Shiite leader has to say.
That’s also why Maliki’s agreement or disagreement with Obama means NOTHING. Nada. Not a damn thing. Only a consensus from various groups on the ground will mean something that’s actually meaningful.
16 kritter
July 22, 2008 @ 1:52 pm CESTIts true that Maliki is not representative of the Iraqi people. The fact that he is supporting a timetable for withdrawel probably indicates that he is trying to show his independence from the US occupation, which is still unpopular with most Iraqis.
Bush pressured Maliki not to endorse Obama’s plan, because it embarrasses him in front of the rest of the world. Most are not aware that Maliki’s is a puppet government, but that actually makes it more of an embarrassment to the administration.
17 The RNC Foreign Strategy Backfire « In One Ear… Out the Other
July 25, 2008 @ 5:34 am CEST[…] Met with Maliki and Talibani - Also could of been done during either’s periodic visits to the states or via a conference call. Biggest accomplishment here was Maliki’s as he was given leverage to push for a timetable in the occupation negotiations with the Bush administration (I’m sorry, time horizon. toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe). […]