Maliki: 'Obama is right' about troop withdrawal

[MTAtech]

Maliki: 'Obama is right' about troop withdrawal
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has backed the withdrawal plans of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, saying the Illinois senator “is right” when he talks about withdrawing U.S. troops within 16 months.

Maliki also appeared to disagree with Republican presidential candidate John McCain on other issues, such as the importance of the surge in making Iraq more secure and whether troop withdrawal equates surrender, as the Arizona senator has indicated.

Wait, I thought Obama was the one who didn't know anything about foreign policy and McCain was the all-knowing expert?

This should shut-up those here who call withdrawal 'surrender, if the Iraqi President doesn't think so.

[Pexster]

I'm glad that's settled, since our position has always been that we will leave if Iraq asks us to.

[Chuckiechan]

Maliki is playing to his various factions. He's got Al Sadr and the Iranians on one side calling him "An American Puppet" and he's feeling the threat from Iran - especially now with a possible change in US strategy on the horizon.

Like any politician he is trying to be all things to all people, but he's trying to placate Iran vis Al Sadr in the hope they will leave him alone if the US stands down.

[Pexster]

All of which is irrelevant. They are a sovereign nation.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Pexster

All of which is irrelevant. They are a sovereign nation.

That's the $64,000 question. From what I see, they're a sovereign nation when the Admin wants to boast about democracy. It's quite another think when they disagree with the Admin about their own fate.

[Theophylact]

Ezra Klein comments,

To really understand the importance of Maliki's comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, "at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves." It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about "Obama's Iraq Problem." Obama would probably lose the race.

Instead, the opposite happened. Maliki, speaking to the German magazine Der Spiegel, said, "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." In other words, the head of the Iraqi government endorsed the Obama plan -- both its timetable and its timing -- by name. That's huge. And it's the culmination of a weeks-long effort by the Maliki government to drive their desire for a timetable for withdrawal into the American political conversation. But though they've repeatedly expressed their preference for a timetable for withdrawal, this is the first time they've explicitly supported the plan of one candidate or another.

Fundamentally, Maliki's comment is evidence of what the Iraqi government sees as the primary impediment to their government attaining real legitimacy: Us. The American occupation is hugely unpopular, and if Iraq is to truly stabilize, its government needs to be seen as independent from the occupiers and opposed to their continued presence. McCain needs to either come out with a new Iraq plan featuring a withdrawal component tomorrow, or explain why he believes America should fight for continued military dominance in Iraq over the objections of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government.

[#43 fan]

My view has been that when Iraq wants us to leave, we should leave.
If anything, it would be a good thing for the military to have at least a short break from combat operations. We have over strained ourselves, and it is now time to have a short break, just in case.
That's my two pennies.

[Chuckiechan]

If anything, it would be a good thing for the military to have at least a short break from combat operations.

Try reading the papers. Opps, they aren't reporting that most of the military operations in Iraq have slowed to a crawl. They aren't reporting that most of the insurgents have been driven to Afghanistan - Yes, across Iran, with no interference by the Iranians.

I think now most of the arguments are on matters of principle as to leave or not leave. Leaving is a way to repudiate Bush, but then Obama will inherit the problems caused my Iran and is not equipped to deal with them.

Strategically, if the US pulls out Iran is expected to sabotage oil terminals in the desert to deny capital to Iraq and drive up the price of oil. Iran will determine who has "accidents" and when, who has access for repairs. They'll send in repair crews with cement can close the wells to put of the fires.

And Obama will be forced to do something. And he has no plan.

If fairness to Obama he's flip flopping on Iraq after he got his national security briefing on the middle east.

[Pexster]

If fairness to Obama he's flip flopping on Iraq after he got his national security briefing on the middle east.

Chuck, you are the only one flip-flopping here. Obama has been consistent. You are now out in the middle of the ocean, rudderless except for your blind hatred for anything Democratic and your blind allegiance to anything Republican.

[tony_j15]

The best way for a child to learn to walk is to drop their hand and step back.