Comments on: Oh yes they DO support his position

By: Selin

Selin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:57:16 +0000

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

By: Tully

Tully — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:27:59 +0000

Obama’s plan has always been (unless he’s done another round of "refining") for a fixed withdrawal timetable regardless of conditions in Iraq. 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."

By: utsu

utsu — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:50:18 +0000

"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.

By: redfish

redfish — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:18:45 +0000

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.

By: utsu

utsu — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:36:34 +0000

"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.

By: Selin

Selin — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:08:24 +0000

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.