Nuri al-Malaki Supports Obama’s Withdrawal Plan
The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined “Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine.
The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that “he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘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,’” the prime minister said.
The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.
This is too big to ignore. This may be too audacious a statement, but this could seriously do it in for McCain and seal it for Obama. Perhaps Bush doesn’t want his legacy to live on for another term.
In case the implications aren’t that obvious, this means that the assertion made that Obama’s “16 month withdrawal plan” is politically shortsighted and strategically premature is severely mitigated and possibly debunked. If the PM of Iraq thinks his government is capable of taking a more commanding role in its own state affairs, a withdrawal plan looks perceptive.
The article (from Kos) also raises an interesting point. What if the statement by Maliki would have said the opposite? If Malaki would have said something to the effect of “a withdrawal of American forces at this point in time is too unrealistic. An American presence will be required in Iraq for an undetermined amount of time.” McCain’s stay-the-course strategy would have been the perceptive plan.
Its a shame Maliki made this judgement before coming to America on a fact finding and realizing that there is an election going on that is more important than what happens in his country. This kind of prejudgment shows his naivete and inexperience.
jkkuwitzky
19 Jul 08 at 6:39 pm
“Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And Im confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’ve had.”
It will be interesting to see what the McCain campaign has to say about Maliki’s statement.
I’m not completely convinced that his comments WILL “do in” McCain or “seal the deal” for Obama, but I think it surely COULD be the beginning.
On the other (paranoid) side, I can’t help but think of how Maliki’s statements could be detrimental to Obama.
gino
19 Jul 08 at 8:32 pm
The immediate McCain response was to claim that Maliki’s statement was made for domestic (Iraqi) political reasons, and they vaguely insinuated that Maliki secretly agrees with them. Doesn’t seem like a terribly good answer to me, but I’m not sure how the press will interpret it given that the cardinal rule of this election is that everything must be somehow portrayed as good for John McCain.
It could actually be good for McCain if he decides to accept the Maliki/Obama position (which I think he could do gradually over the course of a month or so, perhaps ending at the GOP convention) and try to take the Iraq War off the table as an issue. I’m not sure what else he would talk about if he did that, but that’s what I would do if the narrative becomes something favorable to the Obama/Maliki position.
jkkuwitzky
19 Jul 08 at 9:17 pm
Do you guys think this was really an “accidental” leak? I mean, “hit the wrong button,” seriously? If you’re sending a private email, how many buttons do you have to choose from? I suppose you could accidentally put a wrong name on the list or select the wrong mailing list. But sending a highly sensitive email to the wrong person?
S.C. Denney
19 Jul 08 at 9:28 pm
If it was an email sending a news story, was it really a leak? Seems like the press already had it…
jkkuwitzky
19 Jul 08 at 9:41 pm
right. I’m a bit baffled about that.
S.C. Denney
19 Jul 08 at 10:12 pm
I guess they weren’t quite ready. So, it wasn’t really a leak, just premature.
S.C. Denney
19 Jul 08 at 10:25 pm
I don’t think it was a leak.
I’m really interested in what the WH has to say about this. I want to hear what they march Perino out there to say regarding this mess.
Or, if there will actually be a statement.
gino
19 Jul 08 at 10:38 pm
the support was retracted in Reuters news feed, appears the original reports of support were incorrect. see link http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/topNews/~3/340431584/idUSN1932883920080720
“BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government’s spokesman said on Sunday.”
REM
20 Jul 08 at 6:08 am
Well, then. That’s a huge translation error, I do say.
S.C. Denney
20 Jul 08 at 11:07 am
der spiegal is standing by their translation. Not being able to translate this myself, I don’t really have an opinion. However, I’m skeptical since the new statement was released through CENTCOM. It could just be the Iraqi government trying to stay out of American politics directly. Joe Klein has a pretty good take on it at the TIME blog
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/what_maliki_means.html
jkkuwitzky
20 Jul 08 at 11:55 am
That’s a good, concise explanation by Klein, as long as Spiegal’s translation is right. I am skeptical of CENTCOM’s flip of the tanslation, as well.
S.C. Denney
20 Jul 08 at 12:08 pm
At this point, does it matter whether it was translated correctly? If the government is insisting on a different translation, then that seals the deal for me. Even if what they claim to be a mistranslation was really just a change of mind, what matters is that that is how they feel about the issue now.
Even if Maliki did want to support a withdraw, McCain in 2004 already addressed what his position would be:
QUESTION: “Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.”
McCAIN: “Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”
That being said, I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that this seals the deal for Obama.
Chris McNeal
20 Jul 08 at 7:58 pm
Because McCain effectively contradicts himself and loses the Iraq debate to Obama. It’s not as if McCain has been actively reinforcing the rhetoric you’ve quoted, Chris. He’s been reiterating over and over the need to stay in Iraq. It’s all about perception.
And yes, the translation matters. If Maliki says the prospects of an American withdrawal are seen as highly unfavorable and unrealistic, then McCain’s entire argument of “stay as long as needed” is effectively co-opted by Obama. This was one issue that many people see McCain having the upper hand. However, if the die Spiegal translation is correct then Obama comes across as the more perceptive one and McCain losses electability points (the little that he has). Don’t forget that McCain is running as the candidate with, purportedly, more foreign policy experience, and has incessantly hammered Obama on his lack of FP experience and perceptiveness.
How does the government insisting on a different translation seal the deal for you, Chris? I really don’t understand that comment. Of course the Bush administration wants a “different” translation. Why else would the release of the die Spiegal interview with Maliki be contentious? The Bush administration doesn’t want Maliki getting involved in American electoral politics — rightly so, because he doesn’t quite understand the implication of his comments (read the article linked above by Joe Klein from Times magazine — that will explain why it matters and how it hurts McCain).
S.C. Denney
20 Jul 08 at 9:02 pm
McCain has actually gone on record as not much caring what Iraqi leaders think. He stated that he believed that American voters are more interested in what the “generals” thought than the opinions of Iraqi politicians (who knows whether he’s right or not, but its usually a good idea to hide behind the uniform if you can). Also, The Washington Post has reported that the new statement (which is from a government spokesman and not Maliki himself) was made after administration representatives in Baghdad met with Maliki and pushed for it.
jkkuwitzky
20 Jul 08 at 9:11 pm
From the NYT:
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”
He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
jkkuwitzky
20 Jul 08 at 10:34 pm
Ooooh, I like that translation a lot.
David M. Manes
20 Jul 08 at 10:40 pm
How perspicacious is that last statement? Seemingly little. Having a “quicker way” doesn’t necessarily mean a “better assessment” of the situation.
Yet, it’s good to see the media doing its job.
S.C. Denney
20 Jul 08 at 10:54 pm
Ah, but is the NYT trustworthy? After all, they tend to interview shady characters such as Dr. Mark Elrod.
This is great news! Let’s get out of Iraq and back into the good opinions of the rest of the world.
kcross
21 Jul 08 at 10:09 am
Let’s get out of Iraq and back into the good opinions of the rest of the world.
If only it were that simple… :-(
Brett Keller
21 Jul 08 at 11:51 am
Getting out of Iraq might be an easier task than getting back into the good opinions of the rest of the world for the US.
However, I agree Kristin’s thought. It would be a nice start.
gino
21 Jul 08 at 8:07 pm
When I said “government,” I meant Iraqi government. It was Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman of Iraq’s government that made the statement. Why would I care if Bush wanted a different translation? That being the case, if the Iraqi government insisted that Maliki was not endorsing Obama’s plan and that der Spiegel conveyed the interview innaccurately, then what else matters? I’m certainly not going to base foreign policy decisions on so shady of a translation.
Even though I think a timetable is an absolutely preposterous idea, the time when we can remove troops is approaching. I even think that 16 months or so could possibly be accurate. But let’s come to the decision based on relevant facts. In an nation-state that has had so much progress in the last year, can we not leave the place in a reasonably stable condition? Forget about winning. Forget about timelines, political ideologies, or the fact that we should not have gone to Iraq. All these things cloud judgement that could actually do some good for the Iraqi people.
Chris McNeal
23 Jul 08 at 6:11 pm
I was merely talking about the political implications.
S.C. Denney
23 Jul 08 at 7:59 pm
It seems that the original translation was, in fact, accurate. Independent translations have put it closer to the der spiegal original than to the revision. Its rather obvious that the Bush administration’s representatives in Baghdad leaned on Maliki to obfuscate what was (and still is) a terrible political development. The point of this whole story was never that Maliki was actually formally endorsing Obama’s actual plan, just that his idea of a plan for American troop withdrawal was similar to Obama’s.
jkkuwitzky
23 Jul 08 at 8:06 pm
There’s no way the US will pull completely out of Iraq. Both candidates know this. The US will, at the very least, maintain a Navy base, maybe an air base in the north. Currently, the only friendly port in the Persian Gulf big enough to accommodate a carrier is Dubai, UAE. Iraq is a strategic asset to divide and control the region. That, I believe, was the whole point of the invasion(I’m not suggesting it was just). It provides more options, since Afghanistan is landlocked. It divides Syria and Palestine from Iran and Pakistan. Plus it will help keep an eye on Israel, if Iran tries something. Note Iraq’s proximity to Georgia. All this leak/no leak Maliki thing is subterfuge. Not to be a McCainiac, but the US still has bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, Guam and Korea. Plus, we’re about to permanently station a nuclear powered carrier in Japan. Japan for goodness sakes! My, how things change. That is, until GW caught fire…What I’m saying is that there is too much going on in that region to bug out.
Karen L
12 Aug 08 at 7:44 am