Maliki Endorses Withdrawal - Snares For All

Iraqi Prime Minister endorsed a withdrawal plan associated with Obama, creating problems for both candidates.  McCain does not benefit from seeing his opponent's plan endorsed by the iraqi PM.  Obama can't tie himself too tightly to Maliki, or he loses running room later if Maliki changes his mind or cites changed circumstances.  AllahPundit at Hot Air has the original and revised quotes; first, as originally reported:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

The revised version deletes any reference to continued improvements in security:

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. 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.

Mystifying but not unusual - in an article last week describing the domestic political pressures faced by Maliki the BBC reported that the Iraqi press office was doctoring Maliki's quotes to make him seem more pro-withdrawal.   

Josh Marshall is cautiously enthused but expects a Maliki walk-back (And here it is!  Per CNN, he was mistranslated.)  From Marshall:

McCain may also say that his 'surge' strategy is what made all this possible. But fundamentally that's not a point Obama is arguing. The debate is about whether or not to leave. And on that count, Maliki has now placed McCain is an extremely precarious position.

Well, yes - Obama was right like a stopped clock on withdrawing troops, and was obviously wrong a year ago when he dismissed the prospects of a successful surge and called for withdrawals then.  But as I had said yesterday, good new from Iraq is bad news for McCain.  Obama can now make the same argument Bush's defenders have made for years - regardless of how we got here, the key question is what do we do going forward.  There will come a day when withdrawing our troops will be the right way to demonstrate our success in Iraq.  If Obama is lucky, and despite his lack of support for the effort, that day may have arrived.

As to snares - obviously, (see Marc Ambinder) McCain will want to trumpet the fact that his judgment on the surge was better.  One might think that the man who advocated the plan that put us in a position to win in Iraq is the better man to see that plan through to victory, in preference to the man who insisted that the war was lost and the surge will fail.  But I don't think the public will see it that way - they will see that Obama wants to get out and the Iraqi PM agrees with him.

The snare for Obama is obvious (too obvious to have been noted by Marshall or others) - if Obama wraps himself in Maliki's endorsement today he becomes Maliki's prisoner if circumstances have changed after Obama and Maliki have gotten past their domestic elections.  What will Obama do if Maliki announces next spring that the security situation he had always cited is now too precarious for a quick US withdrawal?

Honestly, once Obama is elected I don't think he will care.

As to Maliki, he has his domestic political issues, as well as a desire to be seen as a tough guy.  His security forces have recently won surprising victories in several Iraqi cities - should he announce to the world that he can't do this without being propped up by the US?  An interesting question McCain might want to push - is Obama the better man to listen to what Maliki is saying in private, which is probably quite different?

Coverage in the Times and WaPo is pretty muted.  The Times, 3rd paragraph:

As the American presidential campaign unfolded across borders and time zones, Mr. Obama received support from an unexpected corner: Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, told a German magazine that he endorsed the Obama plan to withdraw most American troops in a gradual timeline of 16 months.

A Big Skip, then:

But Republicans were carefully watching Mr. Obama’s trip, which is rare in its profile and scope for a presidential candidate. The White House also made clear Saturday that it was monitoring Mr. Obama’s travels; it accidentally sent e-mail to a broad list of reporters with the news report that the Iraqi prime minister supported Mr. Obama’s proposed 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.

In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine in Germany that was released on Saturday, Mr. Maliki said he was not endorsing Mr. Obama’s candidacy, but called his proposal “the right timeframe for a withdrawal.”

The magazine interview was far from helpful to the McCain campaign, and aides to Mr. McCain sought to clarify Mr. Maliki’s remarks.

“John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground,” Mr. McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said in a statement. “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.”

The WaPo seems to have taken their time - they have all that but also include the "mistranslation" walkback and a  cautious reaction from Susan Rice of the Obama campaign:

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh later issued a statement saying that Maliki's remarks had been misinterpreted and mistranslated, adding that the Spiegel article did not accurately convey his view of Obama's timetable. Dabbagh's statement did not elaborate on the prime minister's position.

Obama had no comment on the interview, but according to foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, he "welcomes Prime Minister Maliki's support for a 16 month timeline." She called Maliki's comments "an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann offered a different interpretation of Maliki's comments. "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," he said. "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.

And do keep in mind the NY Times story from last week where an Iraqi general loved the concept of a US withdrawal but wondered it if was realistic:

In Iraq, Mixed Feelings About Obama and His Troop Proposal

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

BAGHDAD — A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama.

“Everyone in Iraq likes him,” said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. “I like him. He’s young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president.”

But mention Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.

“Very difficult,” he said, shaking his head. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don’t have that ability.”

Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.

There was, as Mr. Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Mr. Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Mr. Obama opposed and his presumptive Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, supported.

I suspect Maliki is hearing something similar from his generals.  Election politics all around.

MORE:  AllahPundit also notes other parts of the interview less likely to be trumpeted by the left, including this:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?

Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator’s nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future.

Comments

[clarice]

Twice the US press has been hoddwinked by Der Spiegel and has gotten it's first two big stories on the Obama hadj dead wrong. To anyone who's paying attention, the coverage is now ALL suspect.

Including, the to be featured stuff on pita sellers for Obama.

[kim]

So what is Obama's timeline for withdrawing from Afghanistan?
====================================

[LifeTrek]

As Obama swings his campaign toward the general election I keep hearing how Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq.

What I don't hear is what he actually said in that famous speech.

What did he say that confirms his judgment claims today? Was he accurate and knowledgeable and is he consistent today? Does that speech demonstrate that Barack Obama knew the right thing to do when all the rest were flailing around for an answer?

Lets take a look at the key points in Barack Obama's now famous (but rarely quoted) 2002 Iraq speech
David

[clarice]

**hOODwinked**

[Cecil Turner]

The debate is about whether or not to leave.

Preposterous. There is no "debate" about leaving. McCain:

“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. [emphasis added]

Bush:

Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.[emphasis added]

The debate is whether we bother to win first. And most of the electorate (at least amongst the swing voters whose minds aren't totally fogged by Kosbeams) can tell the difference between winning and losing. Even with the softest lens, I don't see how the spinmeisters can claim this one as "he was right all along." Nice frame job, though.

[kim]

I was right all along; I've said for years we'll leave when Sistani tells us to, and no sooner, or later. We are there by his grace, and by his ability to forgive us for Powell's treachery after Gulf I.
======================

[bio mom]

The press is so desparate to support Obama that they jump on anything that they think will help without any analysis or care about what they are saying. Scum.

[Neo]

Is it just me or .. do the Obama “military” audiences seems very .. non-white, non-Latino, non-Asian ?

[clarice]

It's not just you. JMH had a couple shots from Kuwait--

[PeterUK]

How can you not understand,"Nostrobamas" has seen everything before.

[Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet]

I feel so much better now, Peter. Thanks for that comforting info.

I confess I have doubted his wisdom and knowledge. I will not make that mistake again.

[Rick Ballard]

"JMH had a couple shots from Kuwait--"

Here is the Yahoo montage

Here's Fox

It's almost as if "Sergeant, I want 500 cheering troops in that mess hall ASAP." hasn't been said so far in Afghanistan...

That's OK. I'll bet Green Helmet shows up from Lebanon to personally greet Obama in Iraq. He won't let an ally down. If only there were a few more AQ jihadis still breathing...

[Thomas Jackson]

I can just see the hand signals from the troops during the photo ops. Are we going to have another Hildabeast moment with the Dalibama?

[Neo]

Obama position in regard to Afghanistan is now equivalent to that of JFK in regard to VietNam.
As VietNam began to come unglued, Lee Harvey gave him a honorable out.

[Prite]

Afghanistan was all PC and Green Berets and Harvard and Kennedy - planned and executed by the Intelligence Committee and Shays making sure his pals in PC and Harvard and Kennedys got cash. Obama is one of them, so is his wife and his dad. Of course he's for Afghan aid since he had interest in the money going around the USAID admin and to his pals. Shays arranged most of it, but he had friends making sure the dems got the cash. So, we have the dem war, Afghanistan and the Repub war, Iraq. The CIA bought into Afghanistan and surprise, there is interest in paying. Obama's brother on the payroll? USIP and the retired federal employees it hires got their new building on the mall.

Yes, the dem war was a success.

Obama is for aid because he and his pals got paid. Iraq was no money, so he wasn't interested, but Malaki sure responds fast now. Obama and his pals were interested there. They had to be told it was no money and they ruined him anyway.

Obama wants troops out of Iraq and the Iraqis are just going to agree, they've learned their lesson about Obama and his pals. Obama wants more money into Afghanistan, well, I don't think his pals can get much more, but it's good that he's backing up the original pay out.

Sorry you guys got screwed out of some money, but when they were recruiting it was a foreign country and we have to fess up when they figure out the plan. Stans, Russians, trainers, lawyers- sometimes we get confused.

[narciso]

No, Afghanistan was never really a group project by this crew. Karzai wasn't considered authentic enough, and his coalition was too diverse (not enough Pashtuns, specially of the Taliban variety)
A flavor of this can be seen in Schuer's complaint that the likes of Hekmatyar weren't incorporated into the ruling coalition; no word about Mullah Omar. Than again Hekmatyar, the late Raisul Sayyaf and
Omar's mentor were part of the Peshawar circle of CIA favored Mujadeen groups.
One is reminded of the 'loyal jerga' in Bon that went nowhere. Massoud was despised by most of the State Department and CIA until his death made him untouchable. Before that time, he was slandered as being involved in the opium and/diamond trades. Karzai is regarded by too many, in the US Govt like the counterpart to Shaj Shuja, the early 19th century ally to the Brits, deposed in the retreat from Kabul.

There was a similar dynamic at work with regards to Iraq. State favored Mssr. Adnan Pachachi the scion of one of the leading families, and the figure who was negotiating UN resolution 242 and 338 at the end of Oren's book of the Six Day War.
He was an exile too, for almost as long as Chalabi; but he lived in the more
respectable UAE, not Jordan or Lebanon. He was a ceremonial President in the ist interim government but did not prevail in the first real elections. Ghawar al Khafagi, the oil man from the Shammar tribe, had better luck. CIA preferred the late Gen. Khazraji but had to settle for their joint asset with MI-6 or reformist Baathist,Iyad Allawi, the INA who waged a pretty ineffective campaign against the regime in the early 90s. Interestingly, Allawi's vehicle, the Iraqi Islamic Brotherhood, is the Iraqi branch of the Moslem Brotherhood The CIA man who maintained those ties to the INA was none other than George Tenet.
This attitude persisted early last year, with a public relations campaign to oust Maliki; in favor of Allawi, being run out of Haley Barbour's P.R. firm. Much like the anecdote, what happens to the dog food that the dogs won't eat, that campaign went nowhere. The idea of an interim authority, much less a government that included Shia like Chalabi and Sharastani, Kurds like Talabani and Barzani; seemed fantastic then, and even improbable now.Baathist functionaries like Obama beneficary Auchi and the crook Al Samarrai That is what you have to understand, when they complain of not enough 'political reconciliations'

[JM Hanes]

narciso:

"Baathist functionaries like Obama beneficary Auchi and the crook Al Samarrai That is what you have to understand, when they complain of not enough 'political reconciliations'"

Hadn't thought of it just that way, but I can feature it. I've thought it might be interesting to see if there's any apparent correlation between what Obama was saying about Iraq and key junctures in the al Samarrai saga. Haven't gotten around to giving it a shot though.

[glasater]

I had read a comparison of BHO's speeches during that timeframe on a blog somewhere but dang if I can find it.

However, this article from Human Events was pretty interesting titled Rezko Connections: More Questions for Obama. It deals with the Aiham Alsammarae saga.

[JM Hanes]

glasater:

Jane linked to Talisman Gate on the Alsammarae connection awhile back. The blogger there doesn't post on a very regular basis, but he's got an interesting take on different issues when he does. I don't think I'd seen the Human Events article, which has lots of great detail. Thanks for the pointer.

[Pofarmer]

Found a short thead. I put up a few hay baling pics on photobucket if anybody is interested.

lun

[narciso]

the references to Rezko's involvement in the Chanchamal plant in Kurdistan, Al Sammarai's escape from prison, Auchi's likely tie to both; and their ties to Obama
all figure into this. Nibras Kazmi's and that other Chicago blogger, Confederate Yankee, all figure into this. This is one of the problems, with the blogosphere sometimes, the original credit is sometimes hard to come by. Glenn's Instalaunches sometimes conpound the problem. The
difference with the regular 'dead tree' media; they aren't even really looking for the facts. They won't openly acknowledge the Kuwaiti/Quatari campaign against Gitmo,
the Baathist role in the 'looted Iraqi Museum' story. AP & Reuter's collaboration with Hezbollah, AQ. or Taliban affiliated stringers. It is not surprising that the
"Obama is a Muslim" emails, emerge in this culture, which seems more like Soviet era
samizdat in a Pravda culture. Unfortunately,
tripe like the truther insinuations, also flow in this miasma.

[kim]

Let's see, corn, oats, hay....and pumpkins!
==========================

[glasater]

Pofarmer--looks like a very nice operation you've got going there:-)

[JM Hanes]

Pofarmer:

Loved your pix! In my previous life I spent a lot of time on farms -- went through your whole album, and it was like old home week (except our equipment was mostly green, not red:) That's a lot of equipment there!

Farm machinery is really amazing stuff. One of my favs was always the Corn Harvester . When you see this huge, clanking pile of metal parts that looks like some medieval contraption rattling & burping its way through a field, it's just hard to believe the kind of delicate task it's really doing: you watch a couple of yards worth of whole corn stalks taller than you are disappear into the maw and then lo & behold, it spits individual kernels out the funnel! It was always like, how does that happen?

I was interested to see that system for clustering multiple square bales. Has that been around long? They'd have to be packed pretty darn tight to survive being dragged along the ground that way, wouldn't they? Can you lift them up and stack them 6 at a time too? It seems like you could move a lot more hay around more easily that way than you could with the round bales, although I see you're doing both. Do you feed livestock on site too? I'm afraid my geography is a little weak when it comes to whether you're part of cattle country or the corn belt -- or both.

Thanks for including us in; that was a real treat. Speaking of which, your pumpkins are a downright classic, and that surreal Flag shot is really something.

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

You beast! You shot Bambi's daddy!!

How'd he cook up?

[Porchlight]

Pofarmer, thanks for the great pix. Really loved seeing the equipment in action, especially the accumulator with the boys running after it.

[Pofarmer]

The old deer was pretty tough, but he'll make MO big bucks. ;0)

The small square bale accumulator works with regular small square bales. They weigh from 50-70 lbs each. It accumulates 8 and you pick them up with an attachment on the loader. I've moved 1000 bales in an afternoon by myself with it, but it's a long afternoon. They have been available in different configurations for some time. The big square baler that you see has pretty much replaced the small square baler. The high quality stuff gets baled with it for resale and the lower quality stuff goes through the round baler. Sunday afternoon we baled and moved in 130 big squares. Started baling at 2 had the last load unloaded at 8:30. That's the equivalent of about 2500 small squares. The big square has lot's more capacity and they are easier to handle and ship. Downside is they require a lot of HP to run. We're in kind of an inbetween area here. Not really in the corn belt, not in the great plains, really no cosidered Mid-west. I don't know where we are!!! Yes, we feed cattle on site and sell some locker beeves, as well as commercial.

[Ann]

I almost missed those great pictures Pofarmer. Thanks, what a treat.

I have to figure out how to link to picks because my husband is the best pumpkin carver around. We could have a contest!

[JM Hanes]

Pofarmer: Not really in the corn belt, not in the great plains, really no cosidered Mid-west. I don't know where we are!!!

Call it the sweet spot! That's a lot of hay. The equipment may change, but it's still like playing Beat the Clock, isn't it?

Ann: We could have a contest!

Hold that thought!

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some wakfu gold .