6 Comments »

1. 1 Selin

   July 22, 2008 @ 9:08 pm CEST

   I still fail to understand why Maliki’s support for Obama happens to be a good thing… Can someone explain this to me? And if you’re going to say that it’s good because Maliki is the leader and that he represents the will of the Iraqi people and we should listen to the will of the Iraqi people, please don’t bother because personally I’m not buying that explanation. Because I don’t believe that Maliki represents the will of the Iraqi people. If anyone has a better (or more original) explanation than that, I’ll pay attention.

2. 2 utsu

   July 22, 2008 @ 9:36 pm CEST

   "I still fail to understand why Maliki’s support for Obama happens to be a good thing…"

   It may not be unambiguously good. But I do think it means that a majority of Iraqis today think "sooner rather than later" sounds good to them. Their perspective is certainly the most crediting one for someone assessing the situation. After all, Maliki must have an ear for the street-level opinion. Transitively Obama seems to be in touch with the Iraqis, who knows what is best for their own country. I am not claiming it’s all pointing towards Obama as some new master of decision making, but he comes out with a net boon in image and credibility on McCain’s pet (only) issue.

   "Because I don’t believe that Maliki represents the will of the Iraqi people."

   I can see what you mean, but shouldn’t the man standing as the leader of a democratic election have a claim to being the most representative voice of a populace? Or do you feel Iraq is too internally divided and lacking in nationhood? That Maliki is too tied to the Shi’as? Some elaboration would help.

3. 3 redfish

   July 23, 2008 @ 2:18 am CEST

   No, Claudia, I think you’re missing the point that McCain’s idea isn’t necessarily different. McCain has predicted he’ll "end the war in his first term." He just doesn’t think its in anyone’s interests to put a timetable into writing, while Obama does. There, Maliki doesn’t necessarily agree or disagree with Obama; he just said his timeframe is about right. Maliki has in the past been supportive of the US govt staying as long as it was necessary to make sure his government was secure, and not before then. The proper question to ask Maliki might be, "should the US forces leave before the situation in Iraq is secure?" and he will answer a resounding No, as he has in the past.

4. 4 utsu

   July 23, 2008 @ 10:50 am CEST

   "McCain has predicted he’ll "end the war in his first term.""

   Wonderfully vague; does the US have to win first, what are his conditions? Obama’s limit is 16 months but he will speak to relevant authorities first. McCain says 48 months is the top limit, which is like, a bit different, at least.

   "There, Maliki doesn’t necessarily agree or disagree with Obama; he just said his timeframe is about right."

   So even though he wants the US troops out when it is possible, and even though he thinks Obama’s decision to put out a timeframe is good (that’s implicit with the accepting of the limit) he doesn’t agree with Obama? Where has he not agreed?

   "The proper question to ask Maliki might be, "should the US forces leave before the situation in Iraq is secure?" and he will answer a resounding No, as he has in the past."

   This changes much about nothing. Obama has not said he will treat the 16-month plan like republicans have treated the war - like a holy grail that justifies itself.

5. 5 Tully

   July 23, 2008 @ 8:27 pm CEST

   Obama’s plan has always been (unless he’s done another round of "refining") for a fixed withdrawal timetable <i>regardless of conditions in Iraq</i>. That is most explicitly NOT the position supported by the Iraqi government.

   Maliki and Chalabi are playing their own political games. They both know that too quick a pullout and they will no longer be in power. Don’t buy any bridges from them. Their own military commanders are saying 2012 or so, with some residual Coalition "security and training forces."

6. 6 Selin

   July 23, 2008 @ 9:57 pm CEST

   Utsu, I’m not ignoring you, I would have explained myself but I’m seriously very upset and don’t feel like it

   That "if-you-prick-us-will-we-not-bleed" kind of feeling….

   PS: Get a life

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.