Home › Blogs › MichaelTurk's blog ›

A Lost Opportunity

Submitted by MichaelTurk on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 14:22
in

This is a little late, but I was out on travel last week and didn't have much time to sit and put thoughts together.  As I watched Obama trek through the Middle East and Europe last week, a remarkable thing happened.  The Iraqi Prime Minister gave the Bush Administration the greatest gift it could have wanted - a way out of Iraq immediately and under the Administration's terms.

In January of 2005, President Bush was asked if we would leave if the Iraqi government indicated it wanted us out.  His reply?  "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

Last week, when Nouri al-Maliki announced his support for Obama's withdrawal timetable, and signaled the Iraqi people were ready for us to leave, the Administration had an opening to live up to those words.  The Administration should have immediately issued the following statement:

Today, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the desire of the Iraqi people to see a US withdrawal.  We have always stated that the US is operating in Iraq only as long as the Iraqi government requests our help.  We now see the Iraqi government requesting our departure and we will respect their wishes.

I have asked our military advisers to prepare a plan for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, and I expect to see 50% of our troops stateside within the next six months with a full draw down to be completed by the end of 2009.

This would have done three things.  First, it would have taken withdrawal off the table as a political issue the Democrats could demagogue.  Second, it would have lived up to the word of the Administration that they would leave when the Iraqis asked.  Third, it would have completely deflated one of two issues that will weigh heaviest on the general election - the other being the economic turbulence.

For McCain, it would have offered a chance to shift to support withdrawal without being seen as a flip-flopper.  He could simply say that he, too, agrees that the Iraqi move toward self-determination is the final condition for US withdrawal.  Having met that, the US will honor its obligation and remove its troops.

Having missed this opportunity, both McCain and the Republicans have a problem in that we are now the occupying force that so many have alleged.  If we insist on staying, despite clear statements from Iraqi leadership that they are ready for us to leave, the GOP is in the unfortunate position of having to justify our continued presence in a country that has said they want us out.  That's a much worse position to be in for the general election than simply supporting an unpopular war.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Lost in Translation

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 18:27.

Are you sure Bush administration should respond to faulty translations that show up in Der Spiegel? Now, if you want to make a clear position, what was Maliki's actual quote and statement? The best we've got on it is that Maliki was saying that any timetable would be an Iraqi-agreed one and not a US unilateral one. Hmmm, that throws the Obama rigid timetable out the window. And he said something along the lines of maybe the 16 months might work. We 2 years ago they were saying they could take over in 2 years. Things evolve.

I think direct negotiations work better. Direct negotiations are going on right now with regards to future forces and an agreement framework for it.  They have a basic framework and agreement on future forces, reported by FT on Jul 18:

George W. Bush has agreed to commit the US to a “time horizon” for withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq, marking a significant shift by a president who has long opposed setting target dates for ending the war.

The president struck the agreement with prime minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday as part of negotiations over the long-term future of US forces in Iraq.

The White House said Mr Bush and Mr Maliki agreed that improving security conditions should allow for “a general time horizon” for the handover of cities and provinces to Iraqi control and further reductions in US troop levels.

No dates were agreed on Friday but the Iraqi government has proposed that all US troops should have left the country five years after Iraqi forces take leadership of national security – a precondition that could still be years away.

A spokesman denied the agreement represented a U-turn, arguing it was consistent with existing strategy to gradually hand control back to the Iraqis as security improved. “These are aspirational goals, not arbitrary timetables based on political expediency,” he said.

... Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this week he expected to recommend further troop cuts this autumn, in addition to the roughly 20,000 who have already returned since numbers peaked at 170,000 last year. “I won’t go so far as to say that progress in Iraq… is irreversible,” he said. “But security is unquestionably and remarkably better.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed0606f8-54fc-11dd-ae9c-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=...

Its absurd to state faulty perceptions due to failure to a bit of PR as some eternal fact. Such as:

Having missed this opportunity, both McCain and the Republicans have a problem in that we are now the occupying force that so many have alleged.

That's BS. A force doesnt magically turn into an occupying force on the balance of a faulty translation in a german rag. I do agree absolutely that Bush get ahead of the curve a bit by making it clear the end goal is a peaceable Iraq that can maintain internal security and defend itself, and US troops leaving as soon as the mission is successfully completed and Iraqis want us out. But ... wait ... Bush did say that, and you quoted him ... from 2005!

" If we insist on staying, despite clear statements from Iraqi leadership that they are ready for us to leave" - We don't. We havent insisted, and we havent said that. As you point out, leaving as soon as the Iraqis can stand on their own and dont need us nor want us there has been the Bush position since 2005 and before. Now it's in the bilateral agreement that dictates our future forces in Iraq.

The reality is this: Obama is the one who has shifted his position. He was for cutting and running, and now the situation is looking so much better, Obama is in a position where even he cannot lose the war in Iraq - a war we would have lost if we followed his advice of 18 months ago. Obama's rigid timetable and 'all troops except the embassy guards' has now tranformed into a "well maybe there will be 50,000 troops as a residual force".

You say:

 

"GOP is in the unfortunate position of having to justify our continued presence in a country that has said they want us out. "

You are in the unfortunate position of peddling a Democrat-favored meme that makes no senes, because you are treating biased media sources as Gospel and looking at surface things and  not  strategic things.  The strategic question to ask is: What is the USA goal in Iraq and does the Iraqi Govt agree with it?  The surge strategy has worked well enough that US is planning to draw down troops, and that is in concert with Iraq Govt. If Iraqis are willing to do more on security and show they can handle in, the Bush administration would be happy to turn more over to them. Thus, the agreement that is shaping up.  The GOP position is to support the Bush admin (and the next administration) to do what it take to achieve victory in meeting our goals of a stable, democratic Iraq that is a bulwark against terrorism and not a source of terrorism.

When the Bush administration concludes this agreement with Iraq, I hope they make clear the roadmap to success that they have laid out for the next administration. And I hope we give credit where its due on this - to Bush for executing the Surge which turned around the war in Iraq, and to John McCain for being the lonely advocate of this successful strategy.

 

see my prior post on framing ....

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 19:54.

"Everyone agress that the next President is going to reduce our military presence in Iraq

The question before the voters is which candidate has the experience, the courage and the skills to do this the right way.... ....so our men and women come home promptly, safely and successfully"

Query:  why was Ike elected in 1952?

(raises hand) I think I know the answer to this one...

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 20:29.

A few weeks before the election, as they say, Eisenhower made a powerful speech. He talked about ending the war in Korea.

Now, where will a new administration begin. It will begin with its president taking a firm, simple resolution. That resolution will be to forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean War, until that job is honorably done. That job requires a personal trip to Korea. Only in that way could I learn how best to serve the American people in the cause of peace. I shall go to Korea.

So I suppose that those who don't study history are either simply doomed to repeat it, or doomed to repeat it very awkwardly at the behest of Susan Rice?  I'm quite sure that Ike would have stopped in Landsruhl without a single camera - in fact I'm certain he'd have probably insisted on it. 

By all means, overreact...

Submitted by MichaelTurk on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 20:26.

You can get as belligerent as you want, but it's really not appropriate to the discussion.

The fact is the Iraqi's were pushing for our withdrawal prior to the Spiegel article, and it seems to be only grudgingly that the President has agreed to the "time horizon".  Even the FT article you posted indicates that we're leaving a lot less willingly than the 2005 article suggested.

The White House insisted the goals would be subject to continued improvement in security conditions...

The Administration has had ample opportunity to play this card based on overtures by the Iraqis.  If you don't agree that making the move would improve our political position, I can respect that.  If you honestly believe that Iraq may become "a stable, democratic Iraq that is a bulwark against terrorism and not a source of terrorism", that's certainly an argument you're free to defend as you will.

As for me, I see nothing in the history of US relations with the Middle East that leads me to believe a government we have installed to be friendly to our interests is long for this earth.  You may not be old enough to remember the Shah of Iran and the overthrow of that friendly regime. Needless to say, that didn't work out really well for us. 

Neither did the regime we propped up under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. 

While I appreciate your optimism, I don't have much higher hopes for the propped up government of someone like Nouri al-Maliki.

If the Iraqis are, while we're still on the ground, bitching about our presence, I think McCain may be right.  We're not likely to see a stable Iraq free of American troops for the next hundred years.

I don't think it's belligerent at all to question the veracity

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 20:43.

of your assertions.  For example:

Last week, when Nouri al-Maliki announced his support for Obama's withdrawal timetable, and signaled the Iraqi people were ready for us to leave, the Administration had an opening to live up to those words.

I was a little busy last week, but I thought that Maliki's staff came out and denied the timetable was a correct translation - indicating that while he supported a drawdown, he did not want to set a date certain.  I also heard that even Obama had reframed his position from "withdrawal" to "drawdown" which are two quite different objectives. 

I don't have much higher hopes for the propped up government of someone like Nouri al-Maliki.

I can't pretend to know what goes on in the hearts, minds and back rooms of the Green Zone, but I must admit I've been quite impressed with the way that Maliki has finally cowboy'd up to Mookie and the militias in a way that seems to have headed off a civil war at the pass.  And while no one can possibly make excuses for the fiasco of the Shah of Iran and the partnership of the U.S. with Saddam, one can hope that we are looking at better days ahead. 

On the other hand, maybe it's bad, it's bad, it's all bad.  Perception, after all, is reality.  But my perception is that the world is a much better place today than it was under Saddam Hussein and there is real improvement in Iraq.  I can appreciate where you're coming from, but I do hope you're wrong about this one. 

Strategy first, PR about it second

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 10:06.

I was a little busy last week, but I thought that Maliki's staff came out and denied the timetable was a correct translation

Thanks. That's my understanding too. New York Times even had a different translation.

See:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/maliki-backs-obamas-troop-...

Update: A spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister has issued a statement saying his remarks were “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but did not address a specific error. Full statement below.

The Iraqi Govts diplomatic update to 'correct' the 'mistranslation' said the following:

Al-Dabbagh explained that Mr. al-Maliki confirmed the existence of an Iraqi vision stems from the reality with regard to Iraq security needs, as the positive developments of the security situation and the improvement witnessed in Iraqi cities makes the subject of U.S. forces’ withdrawal within prospects, horizons and timetables agreed upon and in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground, and security that came within the Strategic Plan for Cooperation which was laid and developed by Mr. Maliki and President George Bush. The Iraqi government appreciates and values the efforts of all the friends who continue to support and supporting Iraqi security forces.

Al-Dabbagh underscored that the statements made by the head of the ministerial council (Prime Minister al-Maliki) or any of the members of the Iraqi government should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates.

Diplo-speak for Bush and Maliki are on the same page and the withdrawals have to take into account conditions..  Then there is the Obama shift:

I also heard that even Obama had reframed his position from "withdrawal" to "drawdown" which are two quite different objectives.

Yes, I was trying to make that point too. Why are people falling for the Obama spin that he hasnt changed and others have. Somehow going from pull all troops out by spring 2008 it's a bloody civil war and we arent doing any good its a lost cause ... to "a 16-month timetable that starts in 2009" that miraculously leaves 50,000 troops in Iraq and might factor in conditions on the ground is seen as consistent.  Its bizarro-world stuff.

My underlying point was: Strategy first, PR second. I don't I don't see why Bush should react to the phony spin that the Obamedia is putting out at the behest of Obama. The Bush administration should be operating on the basis of the real best interests of the US, the Iraqi Govt and our agreed strategy, not such spin. The FT article was to point out that Bush admin. is doing that, and is also btw right about where they SHOULD be, willing/able to draw down troops as conditions of success warrant. That's the correct 'not too hot' and 'not too cold' approach. 

But on the subject of PR and Iraq as election issue, 2 points:

1. I agree with the assessment that McCain should not be caught in the trap of wanting troops in Iraq past of the point where Iraqis (and Americans) want them. The "100 years war" myth that Obama slandered him for example need refutation. To get out of the trap, he needs to start expressing optimism and hope about the success in Iraq: "I will finish the job, win with honor and bring the troops home."  I wrote in a previous article that McCain has to recapture the optimism mantle in general. Hope&change beats despair&misery every time.

In being optimistic, McCain can recast the successful surge as the critical element of success, point out how Obama was wrong and he was right, and at the same time express it in a "lets finish the job right first" frame.

2. Nail Obama's poor judgment. Obama was wrong about the surge. Not just a mere disagreement about a fw minor points, but HE-WOULD-HAVE-LOST-THE-WAR-WE-ARE-ABOUT-TO-WIN wrong.  This is a perfect poster child for the bad and flawed judgement he would bring to the white house. A rigid timetable continues that poor judgement, and he should be called on his flipflopping for political expediency when he tried to paper over his moveon.org 'get out now' position and recast it as something else.

 McCain campaign have done that - their comment:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

So that we dont risk redebating what went round the blogosphere several times, go here for the recap of how Maliki's comment was interpreted. IMHO, the Lib-blogs over-reacted to a mis-translation (and lets not follow them), but there is obviously a latent desire by Iraqis to not have US troops in Iraq after the point of necessity, and it would be wise not to get stuck on it:

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/07/721_maliki_madn.html

Trying to correct the record is all

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 10:21.

Not trying to be belligerent. my suggestion is to not overreact to something thats not real, ie, a mis-tranlation and the proggosphere's overreaction to it. Such chasing after shadows is the worst mistake the GOP and conservative do. Dont fall for the phony Dem talking points.

See my other latest comment for more substantive comment on the topic.

It's more than odd however that you think  that we should withdraw yet say:

While I appreciate your optimism, I don't have much higher hopes for the propped up government of someone like Nouri al-Maliki. ... We're not likely to see a stable Iraq free of American troops for the next hundred years.

 So after we withdraw the Iraqi democracy will fold like a house of cards? I am of the opinion that Allawi might make a comeback in the next 5 years, and/or the religious parties will fade, and things may shift.  But in any case, Iraq's democracy is taking root and will hold. They will not be our lapdog, but, like India and Phillipines and Brazil, will at least be reasonable, democratic and civilized. We have effectively won in Iraq already, we just need to finish the job. Thats not optimism but a realistic assessment of current status.

And the Bush admins force agreement is such that anytime the Iraqis want us out, we will go in a sub-5-year timeframe. You are creating a distinction where there is little difference. You say Iraqis want us out, and no administration will keep them in otherwise. So your latest comment is contradictory and illogical. In fact, we are more than likely to see troops gone in the next 5-10 years, if that is the wish of the Iraq govt and people.

hello?

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 20:30.

I don;t see what was belligerent or overreacting in the last post......indeed, I see a whole lot of folks on this site with a 48 hour time horizon which leads to irrational exuberance or pessimism

BTW, I am old enough to remember the Shah. I probably knew a lot more Iranian nationals in that era than you knew.

His downfall was a direct result of the Carter adminstration's soft minded  "human rights" agenda. Bin Laden may have been a very evil man, but when he discusses the "strong horse" approach in that part of the world he is very accurate.

How we do things matters a great deal. If the issue is just sending troops home why elect Obama, we could get a better deal from William Shatner on Priceline 

Priceline vs Strategy-centered Iraq policy

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 10:31.

How we do things matters a great deal. If the issue is just sending troops home why elect Obama, we could get a better deal from William Shatner on Priceline

Great line!

Some articles that expose the Unbearable Lightness of Obama on the topic are here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/obamas_oped_on_iraq_premise_...

The Bush/Patreus plan has been on track, and the goal is a 5 brigades or less force within a few years, as conditions warrant:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/the_drawdown_of_us_t...

It's not the numbers and exact timeframe, but what you are doing with the forces and the overall strategy they are being used in.