You can pretty much date the end of the occupation of Iraq to July 19th, 2008 when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asserted his nation’s full sovereignty for the first time since Saddam Hussein was in power. His declaration that American forces were leaving “sooner rather than later” and hence Barack Obama’s 16 month timetable reflected “reality” better than someone who believed the American army would stay longer put a period on our troubling and yet ultimately (probably) successful military action in Iraq.
Yes it could all still go south – something our celebrating liberal friends could care less about but something of which Barack Obama cares deeply. That’s because lost in all the chest thumping by the left over how “right” they were about a timetable is the realization that Barack Obama will now be rolling the dice on Iraq. This ain’t Bush’s timetable. This isn’t McCain’s plan. The responsibility to end the war has now landed in the lap of the junior senator from Illinois. And by what I see awaiting him, he may not like the dish being served.
If he is elected, Iraq will be seen as “Obama’s War.” Don’t believe me? Ask Dick Nixon who despite taking office in 1969 with America fully and fatally committed by his Democratic predecessor to the survival of South Viet Nam’s government, he ended up being blamed for circumstances not of his making nor of his choosing. By the time we landed on the moon, columnists and opinionmakers were writing it was “Nixon’s War” and that he was responsible for bringing Viet Nam to a successful conclusion despite the fact he didn’t start it, didn’t prosecute it, had nothing to do with troop deployments that placed more than half a million Americans in Viet Nam, and wasn’t involved in the sham “peace negotiations” in Paris.
Unless one wishes to argue that Obama’s plan exists in a political vacuum and he should get credit for Maliki embracing it but no blame if, when implemented, it is proved less than successful, then the alternative is that on the day he takes the oath, Iraq will become his tar baby and the briar patch will still be a long way away.
Also by the time Obama takes the oath, the withdrawal will be well under way with at least one major redeployment to be announced in September if the situation continues to improve. But here is where the campaign rhetoric rubber meets the realities on the ground in Iraq road.
Consider the facts of a timetable and the potential dangers inherent in leaving too precipitously (or too slowly for that matter). Once begun, there is the probability that the timetable will carry its own momentum, that removing troops on schedule will be seen as success while any delays will threaten failure.
There is a very real possibility that external actors who are now largely responsible for what violence there is in Iraq will do their utmost to upset that timetable, to delay the withdrawal of American troops if they can. It’s all they have left. Throwing a monkey wrench into upsetting the schedule – no matter how “flexible” Obama wants to make it – will place him between the rock of delivering on his timeline and the hard place of the Iraqis still needing significant American forces to handle renewed violence coming from Iranian backed Shia militias and the remnants of al-Qaeda.
This has been the primary argument against the timetable all along – telling your enemies when you are leaving is not a good idea. The White House has not been resisting timetables for a year and a half because the idea is coming from Democrats. They have been opposed to a timetable because it is a stupid military idea, denounced by both General Petreaus and General Odinero.
But the impetus for establishing a timetable is coming from the head of a sovereign nation who, for his own reasons, wishes Americans to leave “sooner rather than later.” And according to this fascinating AP report from behind the scenes of Iraqi government deliberations, those reasons include a desire by Maliki to establish his own nationalistic credentials to protect his right flank against a challenge by anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr but also a bid to get the most favorable terms possible on a status of forces agreement involving basing America’s residual forces and other rules the Iraqis find problematic:
The Iraqi prime minister’s seeming endorsement of Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan is part of Baghdad’s strategy to play U.S. politics for the best deal possible over America’s military mission.The goal is not necessarily to push out the Americans quickly, but instead give Iraqis a major voice in how long U.S. troops stay and what they will do while still there.
It also is designed to refurbish the nationalist credentials of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who owes his political survival to the steadfast support of President Bush. Now, an increasingly confident Iraqi government seems to be undermining long-standing White House policies on Iraq.
[snip]
With Obama due to visit Iraq soon, al-Maliki’s spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh was quick to discredit the report, saying the prime minister’s remarks were “not conveyed accurately.” A top al-Maliki adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, insisted the Iraqi government does not intend to be “part of the electoral campaign in the United States.”
But that is precisely what the Iraqis intended to do: exploit Obama’s position on the war to force the Bush administration into accepting concessions considered unthinkable a few months ago.
Already, the Iraqi strategy has succeeded in persuading the White House to agree to a “general time horizon” for removing U.S. troops — long a goal of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.
The decision to intervene in the American presidential race was apparently taken last month when the Iraqi Foreign Minister visited Washington:
The visit took place as the U.S. and Iraq were negotiating rules that would govern the American military presence in Iraq once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.The talks had bogged down over U.S. demands for extensive basing rights, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law for U.S. soldiers and private contractors.
In the past, the Iraqis would have bowed to American pressure. This time, they saw an option in Obama, a longtime critic of the war. They could press for a short-term agreement with the administration and take their chances with a new president — Obama or McCain.
Evidently, Maliki sensed the American’s desperation in reaching an accord and decided to “squeeze” them according to AP. This led first to the Prime Minister letting on he was going to insist on timetables in any agreement on status of forces on July 7. And while this statement was quickly withdrawn (sort of) it apparently put pressure on the White House to agree last Friday to “time horizons” for withdrawing our troops. Then came Maliki’s embrace of the Obama Plan – again hastily (sort of) denied (this time with the unmistakable hand of the White House on the “retraction”).
How wise is this sudden move to insist on withdrawal “sooner rather than later?” American military commanders are concerned:
Military commanders are wondering whether all the political bargaining about withdrawal timetables could create its own unstoppable momentum, leaving Iraqi security forces increasingly in charge when they may not be ready for the task.When asked Sunday about the possibility of removing U.S. combat troops within two years, the Pentagon’s top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, did not mince words: “I think the consequences could be very dangerous.”
“I’d worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability,” Mullen said on “Fox News Sunday.”
This brings us to whether “Obama’s Plan” actually reflects the thinking of the Iraqi government or whether they had something else in mind.
But the sharp reduction in violence — now at its lowest level in four years — and the routing of Shiite and Sunni extremists from most of their urban strongholds have bolstered the government’s self-confidence.The decision this weekend by the main Sunni Arab political bloc to end its nearly yearlong boycott of the government has enhanced al-Maliki’s stature as leader with support beyond his fellow Shiites.
With oil now at record prices, Iraq is awash in petrodollars, with estimated revenue this year likely to reach $70 billion.
All that has given many Iraqis the feeling they do not really need the Americans — certainly not on terms they find distasteful.
A much more assertive Prime Minister, a government slowly gaining confidence in its own abilities. It sounds to me as if the Iraqis are set on ushering us out the door.
It also sounds to me as if Maliki would prefer an actual timetable to the nebulous “time horizons” desired by the Bushies. Hence, the embrace of Obama’s plan with the usual caveat that the timetable could be altered if necessary. That is, if things start to go south, Maliki gets to have his cake and eat it too by delaying our withdrawal to assist his barely trained army. In effect, Obama’s plan for withdrawal places the final say so on the strategic decision of how many US troops should remain in Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis. Obama certainly won’t be able to insist on going off the timeline. Only Maliki will be able to do that.
There are traps galore for Obama in his plan which is why he may not be celebrating his embrace by Maliki all that much. As surely as it knocks the chocks from underneath the McCain campaign, it also presents him with problems he may find extremely troubling if he were to take office.
9:53 am
“And by what I see awaiting [Obama], he may not like the dish being served.”
Old Klingon Proverb: “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
9:54 am
Interesting, but I think the fact that Nixon was elected on a platform that included a “secret” plan for peace is relevant to your analysis. Many expected Nixon to act as Eisenhower did in ending the Korean War. He did not do so. I think that might have contributed to Vietnam becoming his war in the eyes of his supporters and opponents alike. If Obama follows a similar path, I suspect he will meet the fate you’ve described.
11:20 am
Sorry, but there is no comfort here. If it becomes Obama’s war, it is a war lost, with great and tragic consequences all around. I do not want Obama for even one term. The desire to say “I told you so” has to be subordinated, in this case, to “How stupid can you be!?”
Not sure the war would be “lost” except that Obama would hand de facto control of our redeployment over to the Iraqis who could then very well “lose” whatever gains have been made.
ed.
11:48 am
The Nixon-Vietnam analogy is astute but does not roll neatly into your Obama-Iraq analogy for the very simple reason that there was little sentiment in South Vietnam for U.S. troops to leave and there is substantial sentiment—as well as the outlines of a status-of-forces agreement—for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
Doncha just hate when reality gets in the way of a good story?
Wassat? The SV’s didn’t want us to leave? If you mean the govt, ok. But the people were singing a different tune.
ed.
11:55 am
Not sure the war would be “lost” except that Obama would hand de facto control of our redeployment over to the Iraqis who could then very well “lose” whatever gains have been made.
ed.
And this is why we are hated the world over.
We invaded their country and there are still some who believe it is our country to spoil – which is strange because the GOP is still in the process of spoiling America. It is their country to either protect or lose – it is their destiny at stake. The host feels it is time for us to go, but will we? Better ask KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater first.
If you are concerned about what type of country we will leave behind, maybe one of you ought to admit we shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Any takers? I didn’t think so.
12:10 pm
The novice Obama is being used by Maliki. Unfortunately Obama is too naive and inexperienced to anticipate that leaders of foreign countries are ready to engage in such behaviors. Obama provided the opening for Maliki to use him. All leaders around the world, friendly and unfriendly to the USA, are observing the entrapment of Obama and are learning from it.
12:49 pm
so Jimbo what is your take on Afganistan, Korea, and WWII, and WWI, and the war of 1812, eh?
See what your problem is, your problem is the same as the rest of the leftards, if it ain’t bothering me F%$k it, right? How about a new form of ‘Manifest Destiny’ on the global level? Instead of waiting for sh#t to hit the fan, maybe just maybe those who have the ability to stop genocide and whatnot should step up the plate and be good neighbors, or I guess we could build great big walls around the US, pull all our troops back to the US and turn off the TV’s and Internet so we don’t see the hell that has been released on the earth by our neighbors.
Naw, but really, just blow it out your friggin cockholster mano…
1:20 pm
Your calling Democrats hypocrites in your previous post for boycotting al-Maliki’s visit to the Senate 2 years ago is a bit superficial considering how you lay-out how different the situation in Iraq is today. Today, he looks like he may be ready to actually take part in the discussions concerning his own country, so of course, he gets a different reception. They are hypocrites for voting for this war (I assume you don’t include Obama) in the first place and have been acting a bit churlish in matters concerning it, probably embarrassed by their lack of balls. I live in Turkey and, while I’ve been against the war from the start, I don’t think leaving before Iraq is actually stable is a good idea. But when will that be? The biggest reason against the war (besides being an evil idea cooked up by evil men)was because it’s a pandora’s box of sectarian hatred and tribalism that only a dictator could keep the lid on. And now, the hatred’s have hardened, the Kurds are calmly waiting to annex the north, there’s going to be mountains of cash floating around to who knows where, and pressure from Iran will lead to what….? And yes, the bottom line is that it’s been a total disaster from the beginning (I don’t have time) and right now, there’s really not a good solution to it. I only hope that some day, the Bush cartel faces a judge for this mess. One more thing, if america would let an appropriate number of Iraqis immigrate (another crime against decency), perhaps the possible bloodbath wouldn’t be as bad.
I think Iraq is ready for us to withdraw the bulk of our troops starting now. I think a timeline is a bad idea but withdrawing a a brigade or two a month for 3-4 months and then pausing to gauge the effect would be prudent. It might take until 2011 but my goodness why the rush now that things have settled a little. We’ll be there forever if we wait until things are perfect so I say leave now and let the Iraqis learn on their own how to govern their country.
ed.
5:08 pm
The real problem is that Maliki is Iran’s stooge and there’s no way to run from this. So the question is this: when it will become obvious to everyone that all the blood and money in this war was spent on furthering Iranian strategic interest, will Republicans manage to somehow spin this as some new development and Obama’s fault—as opposed to the fact that this was true all the time.
At the moment Maliki’s interest are best served by not showing his true colors and Bush’s by not acknowledging the beast of Islamism he has unleashed on this country.
For now it’s a wink-wink situation, but it will eventually have to end. The worst case scenario is if there’s a war with Iran and all the American troops in Iraq suddenly turn into the hostages.
6:23 pm
Obama Warns Of “Fighting The Last War”...
Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of “fighting the last war” as he pledged to …
7:43 pm
Somewhat OT, but re: Rick’s column,
I believe that the NYT can allow Obama’s OP-Ed while not allowing McCain’s,...
...as long as it is properly declared as an “in-kind” contribution to Obama’s election campaign. The First Amendment protections are strongest when defending well-lawyered paper media.
8:15 pm
Wrong Rick. Nixon was a Republican. This will remain Bush’s war regardless.
8:17 pm
You’re also wrong about the South Vietnamese population wanting us to leave by the early 1970s. After Hue and assorted massacres, they knew what was coming. The general fear was they weren’t ready to hack it on their own, and they weren’t.
9:08 pm
Nixon had a little more room to manuever because he was starting from scratch. He was in control of the situation.
Obama will be at Maliki’s mercy from the beginning.
Maliki could always change his mind after his own election or the military doesn’t keep up.
He could say that 16 months is too soon.
Also, the volatilty of the Middle East is 10,000 times greater than Vietnam.
We could afford to lose Vietnam. We will have to go back into Iraq if it falls apart.
10:04 pm
An increase in violence is assured. Once we stop giving out taxpayer money in the form of backhanders to all the different little tribes over there, the crap is going to hit the fan.
We can’t afford this charade anymore.
1:22 am
“he was responsible for bringing Viet Nam to a successful conclusion”
Rick, these are your words about Nixon in the above essay.
“Successful” Your metrics?
Read it again,
“By the time we landed on the moon, columnists and opinionmakers were writing it was “Nixon’s War” and that he was responsible for bringing Viet Nam to a successful conclusion…”
The writers and opinionmakers were writing in 1969 it was Nixon’s war and that he would be held responsible for bringing the war to a successful conclusion,
ed.
1:31 am
“I think a timeline is a bad idea but withdrawing a a brigade or two a month for 3-4 months and then pausing to gauge the effect would be prudent. It might take until 2011 but my goodness why the rush now that things have settled a little.”
thank you Rick for explaining what a timeline does not look like.
My goodness.
12:56 pm
Obama won’t get blamed and the comparrison to Nixon is moot.
The press hated Nixon even more than they love Obama, if that is imaginable. They looked for any thread of connectivity to tie bad things to Nixon and they will look for any loophole to allow Obama to escape blame.
You’re over 50, right? How could you make such an error in reasoning?
9:30 am
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse – When it’s Obama’s War [...]
9:56 am
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse – When it’s Obama’s War [...]
5:35 pm
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse – When it’s Obama’s War [...]
9:08 am
[...] action in Afghanistan in which nine U. S. soldiers lost their lives. Second place honors went to When it’s Obama’s War’s “When It’s Obama’s War”, a very fine explanation of why I think that Sen. [...]
10:09 am
[...] fighting men facing near-insurmountable odds. In second was Council alum Rightwing Nuthouse’s When It’s Obama’s War, which looks at the history of inherited wars and predicts rough riding for Obama, should he be [...]
2:56 pm
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse – When it’s Obama’s War [...]