It seems to me undeniable that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki provided a huge boost to Obama when he said, "U.S
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."
In recent weeks McCain has been winning the Iraq issue by making
Obama seem like a rigid ideologue who would withdraw troops at a
reckless pace, regardless of the advice of commanders or facts on
the ground, just to satisfy the left. What the Maliki statement
does is provide Obama something he can point to coming from
somebody who speaks with authority on Iraq, suggesting he isn't so
naive by advocating a 16-month timetable.
It's true that Maliki did include the qualifier "assuming that
positive developments continue" and the Iraqi government later
distanced itself from the the interview in the German magazine
Der Spiegel, saying it had "misunderstood
and mistranslated" Maliki and that his statement didn't constitute
an endorsement.
However, in political season, the nuances may easily get lost,
and what Americans are left with is the basic impression that the
Iraqi government is getting antsy about the presence of U.S. troops
and wants to handle its own security, and that a 16-month timetable
seems realistic to them.
With Obama in Iraq, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser Randy
Scheunemann held a conference call in which he said that Maliki's
statement was an "inartful" one that the government later backed
away from. Scheunemann compared it to Obama's string of "inartful"
statements, such as the "cling to guns and religion" comment.
Scheunemann said he hoped that by meeting with Gen. Petraeus and
other commanders for the first time, Obama could come to understand
why arbitrary deadlines set without regard to facts on the ground
were a bad idea. He also noted that had Obama gotten his way last
year, we never would have seen the security improvements we
have.
topics:
Foreign Policy, Barack Obama, Religion, Iraq