I know I’m bucking a trend here but there has to be a reason Petreaus and Odinero are dead set against initiating a timeline for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, something they told the messiah to his face yesterday.
Are they Bushbots who simply don’t recognize the overpowering genius of our future savior?
Maybe they’re war lovers and get off at the sight of dead Americans?
Perhaps they’re “Manchurian Candidate” jihadists who want America to stay in Iraq so their friends can kill more of our troops?
Or maybe – just maybe – they know a helluva lot more about what’s going on in Iraq than anyone else in the American government (including a wet behind the ears junior senator from Illinois) and have a view of how best to end this thing shaped by experience and not by what might play well on the hustings.
I am very happy that Nouri al-Maliki has embraced Barack Obama’s 16 month timeline as a template for getting us out of Iraq. It also gladdens my heart that Obama says that 16 months “isn’t set in stone” and that if conditions warrant it, he will adjust.
But what else would you expect these gentlemen to say? As I pointed out yesterday, of course Maliki loves the idea of Obama’s timeline. Once initiated, he gets to control the withdrawal of American forces. The little Iranian loving Shia Sh*t must love that. If things start getting rough again, all he has to do is cry for help and Obama and the American Army come running. It won’t be Obama slowing or stopping the withdrawal that’s for sure. He will have most of the Democratic party on his neck to prevent that. And unless Maliki agrees to a slowdown or halt to the drawdown, it won’t happen. Hence, Obama is in a trap of his own making.
In an interview with ABC’s Nightline last night, Obama hedged when describing his meeting with Petreaus:
TM: “And then we sat down with [BO] to talk about what has become an open disagreement between military commanders here and Obama, over his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a 16-month timetable. Did General Petraeus talk about military concerns about your timetable?”BO: “You know, I would characterize the concerns differently. I don’t think that they’re deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se. There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of changing conditions. And this is what I mean when I say we play different roles. My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Their job is just to get the job done here. And I completely understand that.”
Moran: “But the difference is real. Commanders here want withdrawals to be based on conditions on the ground. Obama emphasizes his timetable, but he insists he would remain flexible. I’m going to try to pin you down on this ”
Obama: “Here let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know ”
Moran: “How do you know what I’m going to ask?”
Obama: “Well, then if I don’t get it right, then you can ask it again.”
Moran: “All right.”
Obama: “Is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months. Or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he’s doing, in which case I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”
Terry should have been a little more persistent and not allowed Obama to set up the “either or” strawmen. No one is saying the choice is that severe. What Terry asked was why not withdraw the troops based on security conditions rather than what by definition is a much more arbitrary proposition? Also, unlike withdrawing based on the reality of what is happening in Iraq, the timeline would, almost by definition, take on a life of its own. It would be added to the metrics for judging success or failure. It would be caught up in the debate over Iraq at home. Who’s to say that with a drastically increased Democratic majority that Obama’s Democratic friends wouldn’t just pull the plug and ignore conditions on the ground? They were willing to do it before he was elected, why not now?
Yes let’s start coming home. If Maliki thinks the Iraqi army can stand up for themselves, bully for him. I happen to think from here on out, it is what happens in the Council of Representatives and the provincial councils that will matter more than what happens with our troops. The Iraqis have to create their own rules to live by and while we can advise them and encourage them, there is precious little left for our troops to do except act as trainers and facilitators for the Iraqi army. And we don’t need 135,000 troops for that.
McCain is making a huge mistake in still trying to prove Obama was wrong about the surge. He should be fighting for the adoption of Petreaus’s views on the matter and not hand control of the withdrawal over to the Iraqis as Obama wishes to do. But it’s clear the Republican’s campaign was caught hard off balance on this and they have yet to recover. It’s an open question if they ever will.
The media will continue to portray Obama as the second coming of George Marshall while ignoring his continued flip flops on his position. Last summer, as an example, Obama said he didn’t think the threat of genocide was a good enough reason to stay in Iraq. Yesterday, he changed his mind 180 degrees by stating that renewed sectarian violence would be reason enough to halt the withdrawal of American forces and skew his precious timeline.
And then there’s the extraordinary fact I highlighted a couple of days ago. After calling the war a “failure” and demanding the removal of our troops at the height of sectarian violence and al-Qaeda attacks which would almost certainly have led to a disaster for American arms and interests, Obama now cooly claims he is for “victory” in Iraq – now that the war is won:
When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan.”
Not only is he a johnny-come-lately to the idea of “victory” in Iraq – a word not uttered by a Democrat for years except in a mocking tone – he also acknowledges (finally) that Iraq is part of the war on terror when his party actually ran on a platform in 2006 saying exactly the opposite!
It seems pretty clear that Obama is signaling to his sycophants that it’s OK to be bullish about Iraq now. All that stuff we’ve been saying for 6 years about Iraq should be forgotten, swept under the rug, and we should adopt a new paradigm; of course we wanted to win all along. All that talk about withdrawal was just a smokescreen, we really didn’t mean it.
Wanna bet he’s going to get away with it – clean?
9:08 am
Obama was always going to move to the center. Huge surprise, that, a candidate taking a big step to the center following a primary. Hide the children.
Obama always included wiggle room. He always said he would consult with the military. He never made it absolute.
In any case, it’s no longer Obama vs. McCain, it’s Obama and Maliki and Bush vs. McCain. Unless you’re going to explain how a “time horizon” is not a “time line.” (Granted, a horizon is an endlessly receding line, but that’s a whole other problem.) Do the generals love a “time horizon” and hate a “time line?”
It’s Obama’s fault that Maliki is driving the bus now? Please. Mr. Bush had already agreed to Maliki’s central demand, however disguised by WH word-parsing.
And in any case, Rick, I was under the impression that Maliki was the freely-elected leader of a liberated nation. You concede—unlike some sad dead-enders—that Maliki has basically endorsed Obama. So the question is this: if a timeline is so terribly, terribly frightening, why doesn’t it seem to frighten Maliki? He’s the guy who would be running for Switzerland if the product hits the fan. So why is he backing Obama, rather than his presumptive savior, Mr. McCain?
And while we’re on flip-flopping, how is it you don’t notice John McCain’s sudden interest in sending more troops to Afghanistan? And how is it you fail to ask why McCain doesn’t explain where those men would come from?
9:48 am
Hi Rick,
I like to read what you have to say. The Contemptuous parts I don’t care for very much, but I like the way you think things through.
PolyD
9:50 am
Terry did a good job yesterday. You must be proud of him.
10:12 am
It was always going to be Maliki’s decision on troop numbers. Iraq is a soverign country and has been for quite a while now. In any event, Maliki’s office said he was misquoted and misunderstood, however, it was Maliki’s person who handled the translation. It would cost Maliki nothing to say he is supporting Obama and that he wants a firm time table for the withdrawl of American troops. There would seem to be no reason for his office to come out later and say he was misunderstood. The translator must have made a mistake. In any event, I hope he is actually serious about wanting a timeline for withdrawl but I don’t think he is. Hope I’m wrong of course.
10:38 am
It still depends on whether your goals are to leave a large US military presense in Iraq for the long term or not.
“The little Iranian loving Shia Sh*t must love that. If things start getting rough again, all he has to do is cry for help and Obama and the American Army come running.”
So, what are you going to suggest? US forces stay in Iraq longer than the Iraqi’s elected representatives want them to?
That little “Iranian loving Shia Sh*t” is in charge because he was the most pro-US politician able to take on the job that could be found. The strategic reality is that the war was lost ages ago when that because clear.
Obama’s goal seems to be (in addition to winning the election) getting out with that as the situation rather than fighting on in vain hopes of producing something better. Do you think that staying another 10 years will produce an Iraqi government filled with people other than Islamic Iraqi nationalists or Iranian loving sh*ts?
11:00 am
What’s the difference between a “flip-flop” and “changing your mind due to new knowledge?”
I’d much prefer someone who’s willing to adjust his thinking due to changing conditions. But the term “flip-flop” sounds so much more demeaning. Well played. In fact, it’s what got your guy Bush elected the second time. Nobody can call him a flip-flopper, that’s for sure. Keep up the good work.
The man is running on his “superior judgment.” He was wrong in that judgment and is now trying to claim that because conditions have changed, we should ignore his previous stupidity and laud him for his flexibility?
It will work because the media will sell it that way. But from a purely logical standpoint, he should be as gone a goose as McCain.
ed.
11:03 am
“There would seem to be no reason for his office to come out later and say he was misunderstood. The translator must have made a mistake.”
If you look where the “correction” came from you might be able to work it out. The long and the short of it is that the translator did not make a mistake.
11:08 am
I like that McCain keeps bringing up Obama’s warning of increased blood if the surge was implemented. Whether it works or not it doesn’t matter but the people should be widely aware that on the most important issue of the day at the time Obama a) warned that the surge would increase casualties and b) the surge was implemented and did not increase casualties, and likely played a prominent role in reducing casualties.
I think this fits in well with McCain’s ‘case’ – my record is filled with accomplishment and Obama’s record can barely be articulated with a straight face. It’s true that Obama will focus on some fancy future, but that’s because he hasn’t got a record. If the people choose the ‘fancy future’ over the ‘record’ then that’s their right. But they should be informed and I’d like to see McCain keep it front and center – if he doesn’t it will get, at best, lost in the sauce or, at worse, stamped down by the MSM. It’s a key difference between the two and if McCain doesn’t keep it out there himself the MSM will push it down the memory hole alongside other inconvenient truths.
12:12 pm
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 07/22/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
12:38 pm
Drongo
To the best of my knowledge it was an Iraqi government spoksman named Ali al-Dabbagh who said that the Iraqi PM’s statements were “misunderstood and mistranslated.” The bottom line is there is no political benefit for anyone within the Iraqi government to come out later and make these statements. Furthermore, the Bush administration does not have the leverage within the US government or with the Iraqi government to get them to make a retraction or clarification such as this.
From a political point of view, it would have made the most sense to stick with the original statement or say something to the effect that they support Obama’s position on withdrawl but that this does not mean they support the candidate as a whole just that they agree with him on this specific position. The position on withdrawl is actually the position supported by most Americans. Most Americans grasp the fact that tighter border security, drilling for more oil and gas, and building more refineries will have greater marginal utility for national security than keeping military forces in Iraq ever would.
I hope the translator did not make a mistake. It seems more likely to me that the translator either made a mistake or the editors at der spiegel made a mistake. Perhaps they inserted what they wanted into the article. In any event to assume that the original translation is what Maliki meant to infer is likely wishful thinking. Again I actually hope it was properly translated. If so, it seems he’s given the US a face saving way to withdraw. If so, this all Bush and the Administration need. If so, we could look for all American and Coaltion forces to be out of the country very soon.
In the final analysis, I’m not sure if the Iraqi government and Maliki want the country to be a de facto colony of Iran or if they want the country to be a fully soverign and independent nation. I think they will work Iran and have worked with Iran when it suits their interests, but they want to be a fully soverign and independent nation. If this is so, it would make the most sense to them to ally with the Americans and to seek a long range American military presence. If they wish to ally with Iran, the Iraqi government should be destroyed but the Americans will not be the ones to do it unless ordered to by the Saudis or the EU.
While Iraq likely seeks to be an independent country, they have to be concerned about the fact that the Americans are itching to withdraw even before the 16 month time frame. This means they have to proceed very carefully. It would likely be unwise for them to overtly offend the Iranians in any way, as they probablly realize that the Americans are very likely to just decalre victory and leave them hanging.
2:13 pm
“To the best of my knowledge it was an Iraqi government spoksman named Ali al-Dabbagh who said that the Iraqi PM’s statements were “misunderstood and mistranslated.””
Via CENTCOM apparantely.
“The bottom line is there is no political benefit for anyone within the Iraqi government to come out later and make these statements. Furthermore, the Bush administration does not have the leverage within the US government or with the Iraqi government to get them to make a retraction or clarification such as this.”
No, but it may have enough influence with al-Dabbagh to get him to muddy the waters a bit with a vague and meaningless retraction. Of course, the translator was Al-Malaki’s and they released the tape of the interview for inspection as well.
The target of such exercises is, of course, you. The point is to sow doubt in your mind as to what the truth is, with the rather arrogant assumption that you won’t investigate it yourself.
“I hope the translator did not make a mistake. ”
Your hopes are fulfilled.
“If so, it seems he’s given the US a face saving way to withdraw. If so, this all Bush and the Administration need. If so, we could look for all American and Coaltion forces to be out of the country very soon.”
Well, since it seems thatthe US government went to some trouble to get him to change what he said, I would say that, for some unknown reason, the Bush administration would rather keep its massive US garrison in the oil hearlands of the Middle East, rather than removing it. I can’t imagine for the life of me why that would be.
“I think they will work Iran and have worked with Iran when it suits their interests, but they want to be a fully soverign and independent nation.”
I absolutely agree. Any Iranians who think that they are earning a colony is making a major mistake. Of course, there is little indication that theywant anything other than a very close relationship.
“If they wish to ally with Iran, the Iraqi government should be destroyed but the Americans will not be the ones to do it unless ordered to by the Saudis or the EU.”
The rest of your post sounded reasonable but here I get confused. You think that a Pro-Iranian Iraqi government should be destroyed? After all the effort the US has gone through to put one together?
And since when did the Saudis tell the US what to do? And the EU? What the EU get to order the US around now?
The reality is that the Iraqi government will be more stable as an ally of the Iranians that as one of the US. In the world today stability should be the goal, not dominance and instability.
3:16 pm
Drongo
Thanks for the reply to my post. I doubt the US government or Centcom had any thing to with the sudden change the Iraqi government made. They don’t have the clout within the Iraqi government. In any event, the source for this was not Centcom but for all I know they could have gotten it from Centcom. Given the media’s distrust of Centcom, they would want to verify it from another source. Even if the media outlet that ran the quote that the Iraqi PM was “misquoted and misunderstood” was respectful of Centcom they know that other media outlets dispise Centcom. Bottom line, if the main source was Centcom, the quote never would have made the news or they would have used it as an opportunity to attack Centcom. If al-Dabbagh was seen working with Centcom in this manner, he would lose his job. There is likely some political benefit in supporting Obama’s position in pushing for a withdrawl timeline so had the gentlemen had said they did not want a time line and then come back later and said they did this would make sense. But since there is no benefit in opposing a timeline it seems likely to me that the PM made a mistake in what he said the first time around since he needed for his office to issue a correction. It happens all the time. Public speakers make mistakes.
If the US govenrment tried to pressure someone to say something, it would likely be people in the state department or Congress pressuring the PM to agree to a timeline for troop withdrawl and not trying to get the PM to change his statement to support a longer presence of US and Coaliton troops. If the US government attemptted the pressure you are suggesting, the media would be all over and names of CENTCOM officals and other Administration officials would be named and the Iraqi officials would get to thump their chests on how they stood up to the Americans.
In short, I find no incentive for the Iraqis to say that they support a 16 month time for withdrawl and to say they are misunderstood very soon after. If it happened in reverse, it might make sense. Therefore, I conclude the Iraqi PM likely mis-spoke but I hope he did not.
Frankly I think the US should not have gone to the trouble to put together this Iraqi government. It is to pro-Iranian for my comfort level. Iran is currently an implacable enemy of the US. This is a potentially dangerous situation for the US. I don’t think the US and its Coalition allies should have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Perhaps the terms order the US to do something was the wrong terms to use. The truth is the EU with its massive economy that is larger than the US and its de facto control over institutions like the WTO and NATO wields very significant influence over the US. Saudi Arabia uses its oil weapon to heavily shape US policy to its liking.
I agree the goal should not be dominace and instability. To this end, some way should be found to get Russia to withdraw support for Iran and Syria. Wtihout Russian support these terrorist supporting states would be much easier to defeat or to at least contain. This would greatly help stability in the region. You seem to suggest that the main goal should be stability. I disagree here. The main goal should be for Iraq to be an ally in the war against Islamic terrorists. If it should work in tandem with Iran in supporting Islamic terrorism against the United States or its interests, I do not want it to be stable. I want its government destroyed and replaced by one that will at least be respectful toward the US and its interests.
Another possibilty is the Iraqi PM was angling for the votes of Al Sadr supporters when he made his statements to der spiegel. In doing so, he may have completely goofed. That is, if he does not want to be a tool of Iran. At least I don’t think he wants to be a tool of Iran. He apparently does not realize how desparately the American people want a withdrawl from Iraq. Since the people elect their officals, this means the officals will reflect the wishes of the people, in the long run. Even if George W. Bush wanted to stay forever he can’t. He is little more than a figure head at this juncture.
I think Iran wants more than a close relationship with Iraq. After all I don’t think you have militias carry out attacks on the civilian population if you merely want a close relationship. The Iranian leader said a few months ago that it was time for Islam to rule the world. By that I think he means his Shia version.
3:24 pm
*”He was wrong in that judgment and is now trying to claim that because conditions have changed, we should ignore his previous stupidity and laud him for his flexibility?”*
Frame it how you want, but a leader willing to course correct, or “flip-flop” when things change is infinitely better than the alternative, as we’ve seen.
Let’s not forget, the past eight years have made it possible for the Obama juggernaut to exist in the first place. If not for monumental Republican failure, Obama would just be some ordinary senator from Illinois. The Republicans created him, not the Democrats.
3:30 pm
Many on the “left” and many on the “right” have supported withdrawl of American forces from Iraq for quite some time for different reasons. Thanks in large part to Iraq’s PM we will all be getting our wish very soon. Now hopefully the Iraqi government does not decide to work in tandem with the Iranian government in supporting Islamic terrorists. If so, this will likely lead to a third Iraq war.
We get an added benefit, if Mr. Obama becomes president. This will likely help to improve America’s image around the world. This should make it easier to get otherst work with us. Improving America’s world wide image should be our top priority right now.
4:30 pm
Obama’s Brandenburg Concerto…
The candidate wants to speak in front of Berlin’s most dramatic prop. Romesh Ratnesar explains why G…
4:36 pm
One thing that bothers me in this whole debate is the assumption that last summer’s “surge” is really the reason things are better. Yes I hate Bush and would blame him for canceling “Deadwood” if I had even a scintilla of evidence but I’m serious. There could be a myriad of reasons for the violence ebbing- anything from “they’re all dead” to them refocusing on Afghanistan to Iranian influence to they’re just tired to a new “wait them out tactic” to protesting the cancellation of “Deadwood”. But if it is as it really does seem, more US troops=peace, it’s a scary thought for the simple reason that it logically follows that we’ll have to stay forever, and that’s simply impossible. The days of troops staying forever in a country (like Korea or Japan) just isn’t feasible in these days of rabid nationalism. And if Iraq says it’s time to go, let’s go. At this point I don’t care who gets the credit for it, I just want this mess to end because when it all eventually collapses into a sectarian bloodbath (fueled with petro$)And the Kurds and Turkey and Syria and Iran are pulled in, we’ll look back on this as the good old days. And yes, it will be on the Bush cartel because they opened the box.
You are correct that there were many other factors – not the least of which was a de facto partition of Baghdad into Sunni and Shia areas – but more than that, you must start with the surge to explain the rest. Part of it was psychological – the Iraqis who were willing to build a new country saw that we weren;’t bugging out and took heart. Then there’s the fact that whatever lessening in violence initially was due entirely to the surge and that in and of itself built momentum for the rest to happen.
An Anbar Awakening without the surge? Sorry, no go. Maliki can try to sell that crap but it doesn’t fly. Plus the continued patient, steady progress in training the army has finally paid off with good to excellent performances in Basra and Sadr City. The police are still a problem and will be a while before they can be trusted.
The surge entirely responsible for an improvement in security? No. But I don’t think you can argue that the gains would have been half as impressive without it.
ed.
7:14 pm
Rick, I saw Terry’s interview. Fortunately for Obama, Terry is much more gracious than I think I could have been. When he jumped in, interrupting Terry, I would not have blamed Terry if he would have said “Excuse me, your arrogant shit. Do you now also possess the power to read minds?” Guess that is why I am not a reporter and Terry is.
Maliki has shown his metal. He is a worm who would still be a guest of Baby Assad if not for George Bush and our removal of Saddam. But now that the heavy lifting seems to have been done by American soldiers, he has decided that he can throw his weight around. Pandering to Obama shows only that Maliki is trying to hedge his bets. And we wonder why Iraq can’t get their sh!t together? There’s your answer.
Over the last two days I have been in amazement how Obama is (and stated clearly) unwilling to take the opinions of those boots on the ground how things should progress. Instead, he clearly indicated to Terry that he would not place as much importance in Odierno and Petraeus as does our current POTUS. What does that tell you? That Senator Obama is of the opinion that he, with not one minute of military experience, is a better judge of how to run the military than those who have made it their life’s work.
Maliki has constantly over estimated the progress of his own forces. I see nothing to tell me that he does not continue to do that.
9:22 pm
Fundamental rule of any kind of strategy setting, you never never tell an adversary a timeline.
10:22 pm
When does a timeline become a not sucky idea? The American public will not stand for a forever occupation of Iraq. Period. At some point, US troops will leave Iraq. They will not disappear overnight. The departure will have to be planned and any and all planning will involve a timeline of personnel and equipment movement.
I am equally sick of hearing about “winning” in Iraq. How do we win militarily? The only win left is a stable, democratic Iraq and the Iraqis have to do that for themselves. By definition, all the military might in the world cannot force a democracy. Bush had it exactly 180 degrees backwards. Instead of “When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down” the truth of the matter is “when we stand down, the Iraqis stand up.”
It was a horrific mistake to go into Iraq and all the “success of the surge talk” cannot change that basic fact. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg, they typically do not spend a lot of time bragging about how well that leg is healing. It’s still malpractice and extremely counterproductive, including the fct that the reson for the amputation is still not addressed. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq – the real terrorism wound and threat to America is still festering in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other places that are not Iraq.
1:51 am
.........and here I was hoping that you’d take a day off from politics and say a few words about the passing of Jerome Holtzman, Baseball Hall of Fame Writer’s Wing honoree and purveyor of a kind of sports journalism that is sadly seldom seen these days.
Holtzman’s death was featured prominently in the obits even here in LA - which for those who didn’t know was the first major market TV stop for one Keith Olbermann, a sports reporter for several years on the local NBC outlet, whose snide, trivializing, self-righteous and self-centered approach to sports (anyone surprised by that?)represented the exact antithesis of the quality work of a giant like Holtzman.
A word or two on Holtzman might be nice…......
Alas, the exigencies of the day – most notably Obama’s Magical Mystery Tour – coupled with a very limited writing time devoted to this site, prevents me from giving one our childhood favorites his due. While we used to fight over the sports section to read him I like to recall his long, fascinating conversations with Jack Brickhouse during rain delays at Wrigley or Comiskey.
There’s no one close to him today.
ed.
4:06 am
“An Anbar Awakening without the surge? ”
Yes, since it started before the surge, and since the surge troops did not go to Anbar. However, let’s not mess about, improvements in Iraqi security have come about because of a complete change of direction in counterinsurgency strategy brought about largely by a competent commander. Supporting ex-Bathists rather than fighting them has paid dividends. The victory of the Shia in Bagdhad also helped to push the Sunni towards the US for protection, a classic example of playing one tribe against the other. And, as I said years ago, without the need to ally with the Jihadis as “enemies of my enemy” against the US, the Sunni tribes slaughtered them in short order.
4:36 am
“I doubt the US government or Centcom had any thing to with the sudden change the Iraqi government made. ”
The Iraqi government hasn’t made a sudden change.
“But since there is no benefit in opposing a timeline it seems likely to me that the PM made a mistake in what he said the first time around since he needed for his office to issue a correction.”
No, there is no benefit in opposing a timeline if your goal is to get all US forces out of Iraq. In fact, you will notice that if the US goal was to get its forces out of Iraq then events as they happened make no sense whatsoever. If, on the other hand, you start from the assumption that the goal is to keep US forces in Iraq indefinitely, then the events make perfect sense.
It is, in fact, a lovely test of the proposition.
Hypothesis : The US wants to get its forces out of Iraq.
Test : Malaki suggests that they should get out in about 18 months.
Predicted result for hypothesis : Bush admin hails this as a victory and starts getting troops out.
Actual result : Hectic diplomacy, rushed denials and general tomfoolery.
Conclusion : The original hypothesis was wrong and the Bush admin wants to keep troops in Iraq.
“In short, I find no incentive for the Iraqis to say that they support a 16 month time for withdrawl and to say they are misunderstood very soon after.”
“The Iraqis”, “They”. Remember what actually happened. The Iraqi PM said something that his masters didn’t like. Then his masters leaned on him. Then an Iraqi spokesman said something that wasn’t a denial but did muddy the waters a little claiming mistranslation. Then the tape of the interview was released and confirmed the original translation.
“Iran is currently an implacable enemy of the US. This is a potentially dangerous situation for the US. ”
Because what? The Iranian hordes will invade Kansas?
“The main goal should be for Iraq to be an ally in the war against Islamic terrorists. If it should work in tandem with Iran in supporting Islamic terrorism against the United States or its interests, I do not want it to be stable.”
Out of interest, what terrorist attacks has Iran carried out against the US recently?
9:32 am
Drongo
The Americans are not the Iraqi masters. As such, they would be in no position to lean on the Iraqi leadership, however, the Iranians might be. Even if the Americans did lean on the Iraqi leadership, the Iraqi leadership would be running to the media to complain that the Americans are leaning on them. If the Iraqi government has a master other than themselves it would likely be the Iranians.
Given that Iraqi elections are coming suoon this is What I think most likely happened. Maliki gave an interview to der spiegel and trying to protect his so called “right flank” from Al Sadr supporters he supported the outline of a general time line. In doing this, he probably succeeded in that respect but he completely misread the American political situation. Perhaps he did not read it all. Later either someone in his own office or someone within the Pentagon informed him that based on his interview the Americans would use his interview as an excuse to declare victory and withdraw even though Maliki probably does not want that.
Maliki knowing that if the Americans and coalition forces withdraw prematurely he would have to kow tow to Iran had one of his advisors make a hasty correction. As such, the correction is likely the position of the Iraqi government. In any event, it does not really matter. The American will withdraw regardless. I pray that the Iranians do not decide to use Iraq as a base to attack American interests. If they do, this will likely lead to the third Iraq war.
“Because what? The Iranian hordes will invade Kansas?” Perhaps they will. There are probably Revolutionary guard units operating in the United States. These along with other terrorist entities could do severe damage to the United States. In fact, I think an Iranian attack on the US probably involving the use of “dirty bombs” is far more likely than an American attack on Iran. Stopping the Iranian invasion of the US should be our top priority. I actually think the main targets for Iran would be the major cities and probably not Kansas.
“What terrorist attacks has Iran carried out against the US recently?” Iran constantly thwarts US interests and they have resisted diplomatic efforts. These are simply used by the Iranians to get what they want and they are still unsatisfied. There favorite chant is “death to America.” They are fully capable of carrying this out. As such, the US should use whatever measures are necessary to stop Iran.
9:58 am
If the little Iranian loving Shia sh*t thinks he can cry for help and the American army will come running, he is sorely mistaken. Once the withdrawl starts the only thing that will stop it will be if terrorists should decide to use Iraq as a base for attacking American interests. In other words, sectarian violence will not be enough to bring the American military back in.
You are correct. If Obama is president. Even then, it won’t be up to him, I don’t think a public call from Maliki for assistance would be ignored.
ed.
4:47 pm
“Stopping the Iranian invasion of the US should be our top priority. I actually think the main targets for Iran would be the major cities and probably not Kansas.”
That’s just bizarre. Really, Gobsmacking.
You believe that?
Wow.
9:07 pm
Drongo
I find nothing nizarre or Gobsmacking about anything I wrote. In fact there is nothing bizarre about it. For the record, in any invasion of the US Iran would probably have Russian and possibly Chinese assistance but it really isn’t necessary. The Iranians are perfectly capable and willing to pull it off without their assistance.
I think the attitude you demonstrate here has alot to do with why the Americans find diplomacy extemely difficult. You completely ridicule and dismiss out of hand a very real concern that many Americans have. This is also a concern that an American diplomat would and should have. When the concerns of one side are completely dismissed out of hand, diplomacy is very difficult, if not impossible.
While I’m not an Obama supporter, there would be a very real benefit if he were to be elected president. That is he seems to be favored by most foreign governments. If we elect him this would help our standing in other countries. Regardless of who wins the Presidential election one of the top priorities of the next President sjould be to fix America’s standing within other countries. Perhaps then we can get others to take our very legitmate concerns seriously.
9:27 pm
Rick
Thanks for the reply to my post. (# 24 You may well be correct. I think allot of it would have to do with how much media publicity Maikis pleas for help receive. In other words, does saving the Maliki government or preventing Iraqi genocide fit the agenda of the main stream news media. If it does, then they may give his pleas some publicity which could lead to a groundswell of support to go back in. If not, then his pleas will not receive much publicity and their will be no ground swell of support.
Even if his pleas do get wide publicity, it really will not be up to Obama or Maliki whether or not the US military goes back in. I don’t think the American people will support sendig the military back in to prevent genocide or to prop up the Iraqi government.
Besides by the time we withdraw, which will likely be by 2010, the Iraqi military will be up to the task of handling internal security. I really don’t look for sectarian violence to flare back up to the level that it was. I think the only way the US military goes back in is if Islamic terrorists start to use Iraq as a base for attacking American interests.
If this does happen perhaps a President Obama or a President McCain will be better able to get other nations to assist us than the Bush Administraion has been. I’m not a supporter of either Obama or McCain but whoever gets elected I wish them well. The challenges are daunting and we will need assistnace.
7:22 am
“You completely ridicule and dismiss out of hand a very real concern that many Americans have.”
Only because it is a ridiculous concern. If a majority of Americans were concerned that they might be abducted by aliens then I would also ridicule that. In fact, I feel no concern at all in ridiculing the idea that millions of people will be raptured any time soon.
Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, and the idea that Iran will invade the US (With what flotilla? Where will the beachheads be? How will they supress the armed population? What would stop the US from nuking Iran long before the troop carriers even approach the Atlantic?) is ridiculous and absurdly paranoid.
If you don’t think that it is ridiculous then please, feel free to explain how this invasion will take place. Not in vast amounts of detail, just a simple plan.
And no, setting off a nuke in LA is not an invasion. Even if they had any and were completely suicidal, it would be an attack. (yes, yes, a terrible attack with vast loss of life, but still not an invasion).
“The Iranians are perfectly capable and willing to pull it off without their assistance.”
Just talk me through how we get from where we are now to an Iranian occupation government in the US. With or without Russian and Chinese help.
When you can’t imagine an even vaguely plausible scenario, please consider whether the fear of an Iranian invasion of the US may, just may, be rampant paranoia.
9:40 am
Drongo
Thanks for the reply to my post. I made no mention of the rapture or of alien abductions. i find it curious that you did.
How would an invasion of the US take place? First of all you assume incorrectly that the American population is well armed. This is not the case. Not only are they generally not well armed, very few of them have been trained in any kind of civil defense. The US has been lax in who it lets into the country. This continues to be the case even post 911. Given Iran’s enimity toward the US, it seems likely they would have had invasion force already in place even before the 911 attacks that would simply be waiting for the proper moment. The attack would likely involve the use of multiple dirty bombs in major cities. Perhaps some of those tacticul nuclear war heads that are missing from the Russian arsenal would be used. Some type of EMP weapon or other cyber attacks could be used to disable the US command and control system. Also, Iran possesses very sophisticated anti-ship missles that could conceivable take out the American forces in the Persian Gulf. Also, I think the Iranian arsenal includes submarines. The Iranian attack could come before American officails even have a chance to respond. No this is not paranoia. It is the reality and it would be in the interests of American officials to prepare for this.
Finally, setting off a nuke in LA does qualify as an invasion. It may not be an invasion in the manner that we think of as a traditional invasion but it is an invasion none the less.
6:18 am
“I made no mention of the rapture or of alien abductions. i find it curious that you did.”
I was using them to give some indication of the absurdity of your Iranian Invasion fears.
“The Iranian attack could come before American officails even have a chance to respond. ”
Quite apart from hoards of IRG members wielding nukes and dirty bombs enough to take out the EMP shielded command and control system in a first strike to end all first strikes (how many of these nukes would they need do you think? Are any of them bunker busters?) lets just try to deal with on of the many glaring holes.
How do the Iranian hordes plan to prevent Iran being turned into a cinder by US ballistic missile submarines? You’re not going to tell me that the Iranian sub fleet (such as it is) is going to disable the US sub fleet in one short sharp engagement are you? Or maybe the crafty Iranians have already substituted their own crews for the US crews?
For that matter how do they plan to deal with the obvious retalliation that would come from US allies such as Britain and Israel? Would Israel sit back and think “Oy Vey, we’ll leave them to it, after all we wouldn’t be next would we?”
Or do thay have similar armies of infiltrators hiding, nuclear armed, in the UK and Israel?
Honestly, you can’t see what utter nonsense this is?
8:59 am
“Honestly, you can’t see what other nonsense it is?” Its not nonsense. As to how it would be implemented, the Iranian military and its leaders have had almost thirty years to plan this out. Hopefully the Americans have done the same. Unfortunatley many of them lack the imagination to think about these things. That was cited as one the major things that allowed the attacks of 9/11 to take place. “Lack of imagination.”
You suggest the British and the Israelis would come to the aid of the US. I don’t think so. Israel might be willing but they are a little busy with their own issues right now. With that said I think Israel will be destroying Iran’s nuclear facilties within the next few months. I don’t look for them to sit around and wait for Iran to destroy them. I don’t think Britian is willing to come to the aid of the US in this regard, however, they should be. The goal of the Iranians, as one Iranian leader said a few years ago with regards to Britian “we need to take it over.” They are more than capable of doing this. So the British military and civilian leadership should make it among their top priorities to prvent this.
10:14 am
“You suggest the British and the Israelis would come to the aid of the US. I don’t think so. Israel might be willing but they are a little busy with their own issues right now. ...I don’t think Britian is willing to come to the aid of the US in this regard, however, they should be. The goal of the Iranians, as one Iranian leader said a few years ago with regards to Britian “we need to take it over.” They are more than capable of doing this. ”
See, more nonsense. You failed utterly to explain how the Iranians prevent themselves from being turned into ash by our respective ballistic submarine fleets. You fail to explain how the Israelis are prevented from responding, or why. You fail to explain why you think that the UK won’t respond in kind to an attack on one of its closest allies. You conjure up hundreds of thousands of IRG fanatics infiltrating your country and you imagine that the Iranian leadership is openly declaring that he wants to invade and “take over” Britain.
This is all fantasy.
You’re just making this up from a paranoid base. I don’t expect you to see that because that’s what happens when you invest in paranoid fantasies, but please, just try to get some sort of perpective.
3:26 pm
Drongo
I think it is you who needs to get some perspective. I think you are over estimating the power of Great Britian, America, and Israel. It would be very dangerous to overestimate one’s own power and to underestimate the power of a mortal enemy.
I’m not making any thing up. As to how any Iranian plans would be implemented, I think I partially explained how they could carry out their goals in the previos post, however, for a detailed plan one would need to ask the Iranian leadership.
Rather than being paranoid I think I am showing a healthy respect for a very dangerous enemy.
1:11 am
“I’m not making any thing up.”
“Unfortunatley many of them lack the imagination to think about these things.”
Think about what these two phrases of yours mean here.
“As to how any Iranian plans would be implemented, I think I partially explained how they could carry out their goals in the previos post, however, for a detailed plan one would need to ask the Iranian leadership.”
sigh Who could probably tell you about their intergalactic fleet of ninja equipped battleships. I give up.
11:26 am
“...intergalatic fleet of ninja equiped battleships.” Its curious you would bring up something like that. To the best of my knowledge, ninjas are cartoon characters. I don’t watch much tv. In any event, I don’t see the relevalance to that here.
Think about what the two phrases mean. I have. Iran is a greater threat to the United States than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever were or likely ever could have been.
Many American and Western European leaders lack imagination. This was cited as one of the major things that allowed the 911 attacks to happen. People simply did not imaginae that method of attack. One area of attack that the Iranians might proceed on would be the use of computer viruses to disable the American military system all accross the board. This in conjunction with the use of multiple dirty bombs and perhaps multiple suit case nuclear weapons, as well as EMP weapons and the use of conventional forces could be all that the Iranians would need to conquer America. I hope and pray the American military is preparing for this contingency.
Btw, I finally thought of how the intergaltic fleet of ninja euqipped battleships might play a role. The Iranian leadership may be telling theri people about the Americans have a simillar type of technology. America is typically portrayed as a much more powerful country than it actually is. This makes it much easier to vilify.