"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US 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."" Der Spiegel
——————————————————————-
OK, John. What do you say about this? I would like to know that as well as the spin that will be put on it by the news babe who is the PR flack at the White House now. pl
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
Dana “Clueless” Perino, current and undeniably last, in a long line of sock puppets ensconced as Walt Disney’s idea of a White House
Spinsterspokesperson, would probably say:“We’ve always supported a timeline on withdrawing from Iraq. We just couldn’t tell ya’ll because…because…well, just because! We really, really did! Believe me! Would I lie to you?”
I am glad to hear Maliki is being so specific. It is good news for Iraq. But dangerous personally for Maliki, and perhaps also for Sistani, if the US were to believe that eliminating those two could turn Iraqi policy. However the opposition to the US continued occupation is much more widespread, and a small assassination is more likely to generate a martyr.
Interestingly, the spectral finger of al-Maliki has been actually hovering over the expulsion button for quite some time as evidenced in his letter to the UN wherein he wrote (Annex I Letter dated 7 December 2007) about extending the mandate of the MNF-I “one last time”, as well as the termination of that mandate “at an earlier date if the Government of Iraq so requests”. (SC/9207 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm
The M$M (e.g. M. Raddatz) has totally ignored this document.
The M$M (e.g. J. Karl) has totally ignored al-Maliki’s past and especially the past of al-Dawa.
The M$M has treated al-Maliki and al-Dawa as if they arose in 2003 ex nihilo with an Iraqi flag in one hand and an American flag in the other.
As we know, this ignorance of the past of al-Maliki and of al-Dawa has caused oceans of blood and treasure to have been wasted.
One has to wonder if in about 10-15 years, or sooner, the US will be back in Iraq fighting the very same government that it inadvertently fathered and the very same army it helped arm and train.
Col. Lang:
re WH reaction: Karen Tumulty at Swampland reports the following:
UPDATE: Curious. The White House apparently just emailed the Reuters story linked above to its entire press list, with a subject line: “Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan – magazine.” This hit my emailbox at 12:59PM, with the sender listed as “White House Press Releases.”
Curiouser and curiouser
Col. Lang:
Mystery solved! From Jake Tapper at ABC News.
=======
White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan
July 19, 2008 1:29 PM
The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined “Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan – magazine.”
The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that “he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘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,'” the prime minister said.
The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.
The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama’s campaign alleges the president is moving closer toward Obama’s recommendations about international relations — sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a “general time horizon” for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran.
==========
Odd time indeed for a misfire although entirely consistent with a recent article describing the “younging down” of the WH staff.
One has to wonder if in about 10-15 years, or sooner, the US will be back in Iraq fighting the very same government that it inadvertently fathered and the very same army it helped arm and train.
Given the state of the American economy, we can reasonably project that – 10-15 years from now – the United States will not be fielding a military capable of performing such feat.
That “misfire” was a major mistake for US foreign policy. They should have kept the story quiet. Or was it an act of rebellion?
“. . .Obama’s Republican presidential rival, John McCain, has supported Bush administration policy opposing a set timetable for taking troops out of Iraq. McCain’s campaign did not return a call Saturday seeking comment on the Maliki interview.
Just days ago McCain told reporters on his campaign bus that Maliki ‘has exceeded a lot of the expectations.’
‘I think that much to the surprise of some Maliki has proved to be a more effective leader,’ McCain said Tuesday in New Mexico.
The national security adviser to the Obama campaign, Susan Rice, said the senator welcomed Maliki’s support . . .”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jKV1Edu9cHxMnajHQlbhKmsZ9vNAD9215BP00
Would someone explain Obama’s 16 month draw down? I am sure Obama does not mean to withdrawal all forces except US Embassy guards.
How many soldiers would be left in Iraq to guard Balad, the Embassy, and to protect Israel?
To go to Nangarhar Province, to sit down with Gul Aziz Shirzai are bold moves. I don’t know about White House counter spins, or Brigade movements Obama has in mind. I do know I’d like to see Sen. Hagel as the VP. Whether ideologically for MSM that’s too much of a gambit I don’t know either. Maybe. Maybe not. Politically as a strategy and tactic both for what the US is facing, I think they are complementary and would build energy. They went together to the hot spot in Nangarhar.
patrick:
Obama did a Q&A with the Military Times editorial board:
Q: Can we talk about your Iraq policy for a moment? Particularly where you talk about withdrawing one or two brigades every month soon after you are elected as a process to get us down quickly. What will you do if your military commanders advise against that and they tell you you can’t do that? Like [Army Gen. David] Petraeus I think said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — you were there — that this is going to put everything at risk, my God you can’t do that.
A: Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said. What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run. That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces and that we would continue to train Iraqis both army and police, so long as those who are being trained were not falling back into sectarian patterns. And I have always said that as commander in chief I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our mid-level officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.
But what I have said is that it is the job of the commander in chief to set strategy. One of the differences that I’ve had with the Bush administration has been the tendency to say, that well I’m just going with what General Petraeus says. Which in fact was oftentimes the excuse they gave before General Petraeus was in place. Every time something went wrong — well I’m just doing what the generals tell me to do. That’s an abdication of responsibility. My job as commander in chief will be to set strategy. I have to set strategy with respect to Iraq in light of a range of other potential threats and situations. If we have only one battle-ready brigade available outside the Iraq rotation to respond to other risks, that’s not good strategic planning by the commander in chief. If we have a situation in Afghanistan where we are seeing more and more violence in the eastern portion of Afghanistan, at a time when we’ve actually increased the forces down there and we’ve got some of the best battle-tested operations deployed there and we’re still seeing increases in violence, what that tells me is that we’ve got real problems. And I’m going to have to make a series of strategic decisions if I’m commander in chief, and Iraq is just one part of that overall decision-making. In fact I would argue at this point that part of General Petraeus’ job now is to think about not just Iraq but how the entire alignment of threats in [Central Command].
My point is I will always listen to them. But what I won’t do is abdicate my responsibilities to make the final decisions about strategy in consultation with them about how we effectuate this broad-based strategy.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/070708mt_obama_transcript/
The idea of a withdrawal in 16 months or some period of time up to that is encouraging, except that an attack on Iran could throw a monkey wrench into any timetable.
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=259477
The talks with Iran’s nuclear representative were “inconclusive”, and the U.S. said that—
“Tehran must choose between cooperation or confrontation and give up sensitive nuclear work.”
And, the “European Union” person said that Iran must give a clear answer to the “offer” within two weeks.
This is the same trick used with Yugoslavia/Serbia and Iraq: you make them an offer they have to refuse. And you phrase it in terms of a “choice” that the other side must make.
An attack on Iran will of course muck up any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
We sure do live in interesting times.
The inability of the Cheney/Bush Junta to control the Iraqi narrative may critically expose the chimera of McCain’s national security and foreign policy expertise for all to see. Events seem to be spinning out of their control.
To paraphrase T.S.Eliot … This is how the Bush era ends, not with a bang, but a whimper. Or so we all hope.
endgameAK: Events seem to be spinning out of their control.
When were they ever in control?
With the histories of the al-Dawa party (search terms: dawa AND “marine barracks”) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in mind, both of which were formed at the behest of the Ayatollah Khomeini, it seems highly likely that the Bush admin publicly, officially, and ironically lost control back in 2003 during the election which they were strangely fond to point to despite Chalabi’s horribly insignificant returns.
Pompous ignorance, hubris, and/or a combination of these and perhaps dozens of other debilitating factors, may have led the Bush admin to believe that the once persecuted members from the al-Dawa party (e.g.: al-Maliki) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (al-Hakim) were going to lop off the heads, so to speak, of the Iranian religious fanatics who had supported and hosted them for decades (!!), while SH ruled, and then turn and present these heads on platters to Bush who would then escort them to his made for TV ranch where they could cut brush and then suck down chili dogs outside the Tastee Freeze.
What we see in Iraq is well over two decades in the making and goes back to the hey day of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Scary, no?
endgameAK: Events seem to be spinning out of their control.
When were they ever in control?
With the histories of the al-Dawa party (search terms: dawa AND “marine barracks”) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in mind, both of which were formed at the behest of the Ayatollah Khomeini, it seems highly likely that the Bush admin publicly, officially, and ironically lost control back in 2003 during the election which they were strangely fond to point to despite Chalabi’s horribly insignificant returns.
Pompous ignorance, hubris, and/or a combination of these and perhaps dozens of other debilitating factors, may have led the Bush admin to believe that the once persecuted members from the al-Dawa party (e.g.: al-Maliki) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (al-Hakim) were going to lop off the heads, so to speak, of the Iranian religious fanatics who had supported and hosted them for decades (!!), while SH ruled, and then turn and present these heads on platters to Bush who would then escort them to his made for TV ranch where they could cut brush and then suck down chili dogs outside the Tastee Freeze.
What we see in Iraq is well over two decades in the making and goes back to the hey day of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Scary, no?
For an administration that seems unable to process new information and make decisions not preordained, they’re getting awfully good at saying ‘and that’s what we’ve wanted all along’.
McCain will wait for his new script to be delivered, then do a silly dance so we can laugh, clap and forget.
Spiegel says no mistranslation and puts up the transcript
I personally know a lot of Spiegel folks. They have at least three journos and archivists fluent in Arabic. The don’t miss-translate.
Also note that the Maliki interview was with the print Spiegel which is much more careful with material like this than the Spiegel Internet site newsroom.
Admiral Fallon’s resignation cemented the idea, at least for me, that military affairs in Iraq were specifically managed and specified by the White House directly to Petraeus. Odierno is a goon – the model general of Bush and Cheney dreams. His current role as news broker is laughable.
The administration has not enunciated one reason why the United States needs to be in Iraq any longer. Supporters of Bush announce “danger” and “risk” but nothing specific has been brought forth.
Obama stomps on the neocon lizard with two statements: 1) Iraq was never the central front on terrorism; 2) Unlike Bush, he will not abdicate his role as CIC to the generals in the field; he’ll listen to them, but he says he will set the strategy. That seems consistent with the U. S. military tradition.
We have not yet plumbed the depth of destruction to the nation by Bush and his gang. The broken military, the economic problems, abridgment of personal freedoms, obscene redistribution of wealth, and the rusting infrastructure are some of the things we can see. Only time will reveal the full scope of the iceberg of damage. One thing is clear: regardless of the mission, this country no longer has the financial or manpower means to support actions in Iran and Afghanistan.
Colonel Lang and his contributors educate and make us think; the history lesson is priceless. I have concluded from what I have read here that Bush and the neocons have given Iran a new base of operations in Iraq thus heightening the tension between religious factions in that part of the world. In a strange way, Bush and the neocons have created a situation that permanently paints Israel into a corner.
General Zinni and other were correct: containment works; Saddam saved us a couple of trillion dollars.
By the way, Gates is window dressing and is powerless for the big stuff.
Paul: We have not yet plumbed the depth of destruction to the nation by Bush and his gang….I have concluded from what I have read here that Bush and the neocons have given Iran a new base of operations in Iraq thus heightening the tension between religious factions in that part of the world.
Yes!!!
What I can’t obliterate from my mind and heart is the precisely incised idea that the bloody nightmare we now see in Iraq is the Bush administration’s direct but inadvertent response to the ghastly attacks of 9/11.
In Sept 2001, thousands of people were maimed or murdered and billions of dollars in damage were incurred.
Since March 2003, hundreds of thousands of people have been maimed and murdered and about $1 trillion is going to spent.
And for whom?
For a small cabal of religious fanatics (al-Dawa, SCIRI) who have been trying to transform Iraq into a Islamic fundamentalist republic which has close and long ties with extremists in Iran for over two decades!!!
Where are the wails of sorrow?
Why are there no screams of psychotic laughter?
Where is the outrage?