While much of the talk was no doubt influenced by the ongoing negotiations between Iraqi officials and the Bush administration over a long-term security agreement, one of the major takeaways of the week was the frequent talk from Iraqi leaders about a U.S. withdrawal. Different officials referenced different timelines, but there was a common thread — Shi’a leaders (you know, the ones in charge) disapprove of an indefinite U.S. presence.
On Thursday, Ali al-Dabbagh said a U.S. pullout could be completed in several years. “It can be 2011 or 2012,” he said. “We don’t have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline.” This prompted Spencer Ackerman to all but declare the Iraq debate over, with Barack Obama as the winner — Iraqis have rejected McCain’s policy, leaving a President Obama to negotiate the “specific date” that Iraqis are prepared to accept.
Slate’s Fred Kaplan reached a similar conclusion, noting that Obama’s policy has been “endorsed” by the prime minister of Iraq and his government.
The stab from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned into a comedy routine. Maliki stated this week that he would not sign any treaty allowing U.S. armed forces to remain on his nation’s soil—the current accord, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, expires at the end of this month — unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.
Obama has called for just such a timetable. McCain has opposed one, famously saying that a substantial number of U.S. combat troops might need to stay in Iraq for another 100 years.
When asked about Maliki’s statement, McCain told reporters that it had been mistranslated — to which Maliki responded that, no, the English version was correct. At that point, some of McCain’s supporters said that the prime minister wasn’t serious, that he’d been forced by political constituencies to demand a timetable. Maliki again insisted that he meant what he’d said. (Even if he was caving to political pressures, one could infer that this suggests a majority of Iraqis and their major parties want us to commit to getting out in the not-too-distant future.) […]
Maliki’s insistence on this score makes life a lot easier for Obama.
That’s for sure. Americans are ready for a withdrawal; Iraqis are ready for a withdrawal; Obama has proposed a withdrawal; and the Maliki government wants a withdrawal.
The only people talking about an indefinite war, folllowed by an indefinite presence, are George W. Bush and John McCain.
Kaplan added:
McCain pressured him into planning a trip to Iraq this summer — he hadn’t been there for two years — so he can see the place up close before making judgments about its future. While he’s there, Obama will be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus and other commanders; he’ll probably also talk with junior officers and enlisted men, and with Iraqi politicians, too. Security in Iraq is better than it was a year ago. To some degree, this improvement is the result of George W. Bush’s surge (combined with Petraeus’ strategy, Muqtada Sadr’s cease-fire, the paying of many insurgents to stop shooting at us, and, most important, the alliance between U.S. forces and Sunni insurgents against the common enemy of al-Qaida — an alliance initiated by the Sunnis before the surge began).
It might have been awkward for Obama to praise the troops’ accomplishments then rapidly pull them out. But he could say, “If our friend the Iraqi prime minister wants us to set a schedule for withdrawing, well, how could any president of the United States insist otherwise?”
And that would be a tough argument to condemn. McCain’s going to try, but I don’t see it working.