Given that Iraq’s Sunnis and Iraq’s Shi’ia would both like to see U.S. troops withdraw sooner rather than later, perhaps it’s not terribly surprising that Nouri al-Maliki is publicly making noises about telling the U.S., “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has for the first time suggested establishing a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a step that the Bush administration has long opposed.
Maliki raised the idea Monday during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, where he spoke with Arab ambassadors about a security pact being negotiated to determine the future U.S. military role in Iraq.
“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Maliki said, according to a statement released by his office. “In all cases, the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq.”
Oddly enough, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Maliki’s statement is consistent with the goals of the Bush administration. “The prime minister is reflecting a shared goal that we have, which is that as the Iraqi forces become a more self-reliant force, we’ll see reductions in U.S. forces,” Fratto said.
By all appearances, that’s not quite what Maliki was saying, and his remarks don’t seem, at first blush, to be at all consistent with the Bush administration’s rhetoric. Maliki didn’t say he’d like, someday, well into the future, when Iraq is hunky dory, to maybe think about sending U.S. troops home. What his office said, in writing, is that Maliki is working on an agreement whereby we’d either leave or “put a timetable” in place to schedule our leaving.
And that’s clearly not administration policy.
Given this, and the White House’s repeated assurances that U.S. troops would only stay as long as we’re welcome, do Maliki’s comments reflect a light at the end of the tunnel? I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
For one thing, Maliki has internal politics on his mind.
The comments reflect the political dilemma confronting Maliki and other members of his Shiite-led government. Their primary rival in upcoming provincial elections, Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, is a leading critic of the American presence who has long called for a timetable, a position that is widely popular among Iraq’s majority Shiites.
The talks on the security pact have also raised concerns across the Iraqi political spectrum — and the broader Arab world — about preserving Iraq’s sovereignty and preventing a long-term American presence. Framing the agreement as a memorandum of understanding, possibly including a timetable, may make it more politically palatable, analysts said.
Maliki does have a habit of saying one thing to regional/local audiences, and saying something else once he sits down with Bush administration officials. In fact, USA Today characterized Maliki’s remarks as little more than a negotiating tactic.
Nevertheless, Kevin Drum does a nice job putting these negotiations in a broader context.
On the U.S. side, there’s Barack Obama waiting in the wings. He says he’s going to start drawing down troops immediately and finish the withdrawal within 16 months, and even the famously out-to-lunch George Bush must be at least considering the strong possibility that Obama is going to win in November and then do what he says he’s going to do. So what’s the best strategy for both sides here?
Answer: a “timeline” for withdrawal, but one that’s slower and more flexible than the one they think Obama will impose. Say 36 months, with conditions and caveats. Then, when January rolls around and Obama takes office, he has to decide: is it worth a political donnybrook not to impose a withdrawal plan where none currently exists, but merely to speed up a withdrawal plan that’s already in place?
Maybe not. Both Bush and Maliki, therefore, might be shrewd to negotiate a withdrawal plan of their own: Maliki for electoral reasons and Bush in order to get the best deal he probably can under the circumstances. I wouldn’t say this is a likely scenario or anything, but it’s a possible one. It only works, however, if Obama remains firm on his own withdrawal plan. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Stay tuned.