Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Surge is why Maliki agrees with Obama
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Dan Balz points out:
When Sen. Barack Obama left Washington last week, he was under pressure to defend what Republican critics called an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq. By Monday, the White House and rival Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign were at pains to explain why the Iraqi prime minister had seemingly all but endorsed Obama's relatively rapid timeline for getting out.
I've gotten a bit of a chuckle over all of this. Whether Maliki "endorses" Obama's arbitrary timeline for withdrawal or not, it still doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

It simply means that two people agree on a bad idea.

Such is life.

Politically, however, it is an embarrassment for the administration and a bit of a repudiation for McCain.

But it is and should be an Iraqi decision in the final analysis, and I am heartened by the fact that Maliki does want a fairly rapid withdrawal since he is obviously convinced that the ISF and his government are ready to handle the security situation there.

That's a good thing, and we ought to quit fighting so hard against a good thing.

OTOH, probably more indicative of Obama's absurd position vis a vis Iraq is his continued opposition to the surge despite the fact it is the surge that has put Maliki in the position to want an early withdrawal.

Obama is simply unable to bring himself to acknowledge that fact. The only reason Maliki is talking about early withdrawal is because the surge has placed him in a position to do so. Otherwise he'd be telling Mr. Obama his plan is full of beans - in a nice diplomatic way, of course.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
i dont think that maliki really wants the US to leave. the iraqi elections are comming up in october. maliki is just playing to the sadar-shia block that was just defeated in basa recently. he knows that if he wants their vote he has to move to reduce to number of foreign troops or at least say he wants that. but at the same time it is the US forces that prop up his regimeme. esp if the military went against him. so publicly for now he has to play the game.
 
Written By: slntax
URL: http://
Just as we have seen the definition of what "is" is made moot, we are now seeing a stretch on the definition of "agree."

Obama first introduced legislation for a fixed withdrawal plan on January 30, 2007. According to that plan, all combat brigades would have been out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

It’s one thing to plan a withdrawal once the situation is stable, but on March 31, 2008 the defeatists where proclaiming Basra lost to Iranian backed militias, hardly a point anybody with the coalition would call victory.

Maliki has said that he would like to have all US forces out of Iraq, if conditions continue to improve, by the end of 2010. By simple math, that would be 23 months into a possilbe Obama administration.

Since when is the end of 2010 the same as the end of March 2008 ?
Since when is 23 months the same as 16 months ?

This is a "fools agreement."
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Obama has said he won’t raise taxes for those with incomes under $250,000 .. that’s me.
I will vote for Obama .. if he agrees that the Secret Service will shoot him dead on the steps of the Capitol if he raises my taxes
Anyone think Obama would agree to that ? .. He might.
Of course, he would argue that if he doesn’t go to the steps of the Capitol, then he can continue on .. agreement upheld.

Funny about that "agree" thing.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan.”
This sure makes that Obama’s legislation, for a fixed date withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, look pretty darn stupid .. but it’s so yesterday.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
but it’s so yesterday
That Memory-Hole has got to be nearly full by now...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
it is the surge that has put Maliki in the position to want an early withdrawal.
Either that or Maliki’s been ready and waiting for a year for somebody in the US to come around.

Anyway, slntax has a good point. If Maliki doesn’t adopt Sadr’s "Yankee go home" position, then Sadr will crush him in the elections coming up.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Anyway, slntax has a good point. If Maliki doesn’t adopt Sadr’s "Yankee go home" position, then Sadr will crush him in the elections coming up.
I doubt that - mookie hasn’t exactly dazzled ’em in Baghdad (or Basra) lately.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I’ll just quote myself:
Thankfully the Washington Post notices the consistency of his views, and the inconstancy of his reasons for them.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I’ve gotten a bit of a chuckle over all of this. Whether Maliki "endorses" Obama’s arbitrary timeline for withdrawal or not, it still doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea.

It simply means that two people agree on a bad idea.
Wow - so now the elected government of Iraq doesn’t know what it is good for it. Did you go to Imperialism school or something? I thought Maliki was your boy.
But it is and should be an Iraqi decision in the final analysis, and I am heartened by the fact that Maliki does want a fairly rapid withdrawal since he is obviously convinced that the ISF and his government are ready to handle the security situation there.
No - he is convinced her doesn’t want to lose in October. Domestic Iraqi politics has never been your bag.
The only reason Maliki is talking about early withdrawal is because the surge has placed him in a position to do so.


No - it’s again because of domestic politics - and the Sunni pay-off.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
My two cents:

1. Maliki is one of the guys in the firing line if his regime fails, so he must be pretty upbeat to consider this timetable. That’s good news.

2. Let’s imagine you are Maliki, and you are considering that in 2009 you will have a new US president to deal with. How would you go about making sure your bread will get buttered? Why, you agree with Obama, the most likely winner. Plus, if McCain wins, it doesn’t really matter as he wouldn’t flush Iraq down the toilet anyways. Thus, Maliki knows that he needs to get on Obama’s good side. Best way he can do that? Agree with Obama on something like a timetable, which, of course, will be heavily modified once the O-man is elected anyways.

"Logistical factors will slow down the re-deployment of troops from Iraq."

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Did you go to Imperialism school or something?
Wait, you can go to school for that? I totally missed that on career day.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://qando.net
mkultra: "it’s again because of domestic politics"

I don’t see how this idea goes against credit for the ’surge’, given that the strategy was designed to encourage and work closely with improved "domestic politics". The two are tied together.

The 2010 timeframe makes sense to me. When the Petraeus-led ’surge’ began, I thought, succeed or fail, no matter who’s President, we would have to draw down our military forces in Iraq by 2010. The difference is how we do it.

It’s not like we meant to stay forever, anyway: "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq." - President Bush (aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, May 1, 2003)

Given the state of Iraq when it began, the progress made during the ’surge’ has been startling over a short period of time. It’s easy enough to be optimistic at the moment that if the pace of progress maintains this trajectory, we indeed will be able to "leave behind a free Iraq" by 2010.
 
Written By: Eric Chen
URL: http://
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama’s own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Spin .. spin .. ignore the facts.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider