Al-Maliki had made news last week when remarks he made were interpreted to indicate that he would like to see some sort of a timetable included in the bilateral agreement the two countries are in the process of hammering out. The two leaders, who spoke Thursday via video conference, discussed that pact, which will cover security, diplomacy, economics, health and culture, among other areas.
CONDITIONS-BASED
Suggestion to everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent….AMERICANS:
Memorize that phrase; “CONDITIONS-BASED”
Withdrawals of forces from Iraq will have a schedule, but they will not be an inflexible The-War-Is-Over-On-11/11/10 date. They will be FLEXIBLE schedules that can change depending on conditions on the ground; they will be CONDITIONS-BASED. That means (for those who oppose the war primarily for political purposes and not for realistic ones) that, If the enemy makes a new offensive in Iraq…then the timetable goes out the window because the enemy does get a vote. Right now, the enemy in Iraq is largely defeated. If it stays that way, then more troops can come home. The decision from President Bush, President Obama, or President McCain will be a decision that is flexible and CONDITIONS-BASED.
When you hear that there is a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, start listening closely to see if the report suggests “war is over on such and such date” kinda story, or if they point out that the withdrawal will be CONDITIONS-BASED.
See author page
Memorize that phrase; “CONDITIONS-BASED”
Before the 2003 invasion I remember President Bush saying something like ‘Iraq’s oil revenues will pay for the war’. The reality is the American taxpayer is footing the bill to rebuild Iraq, the United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come. Iraq it would seem has us over a barrell, if we stay it costs, if we pull out and have to go back it costs….What is the answer ?
.
Bush never said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Deputy Sec of Def Wolfowitz was pressed at a Congressional hearing before the invasion, and he was asked by members of Congress (who would themselves have to authorize and pay for the war) how much the war would cost. He said there was no way to tell (there isn’t because there’s no way to be certain what the enemy’s actions will be), but he guessed that a large part of the cost would be offset by Iraqi oil revenue. This was true for the invasion, but not the UN-mandated occupation. Gosh, look at that…some Deputy Secretary was wrong in guessing what the enemy would do.
If you can find a quote from President Bush saying Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion…I’d love to see it.
This is one of those anti-war/DNC propaganda myths; like the one where he repeatedly said the invasion was because Saddam tried to have his dad killed (Bush only said it once, and that was a clear gaffe), or like the myth that Bush said Iraq sponsored 911 (he never said that, and made efforts to make it clear there was no evidence of that). There are other anti-war propaganda lies, and while opponents of the war seem to find great pleasure in crying BUSH LIED, those same people almost never hold opponents of the war accountable for their actual, deliberate, and counter-productive lies.
I don’t see it as so clear cut. That’s why it’s called a “time horizon”; that’s the phase we should probably memorize. Yet there’s so much smoky convoluted political matter in these negotiations now, one almost feels ‘anything interpretation goes.’
Dr. Irak ‘shares’:
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-horizon.html
Find out why they got ‘zip, nada …” by reading the rest.
This is such an asinine argument that it’s hard to respond. Time Horizon, time line and time table are all pretty much the same thing. Time Horizon is a financial terminology that states that an assessment will be made in a fixed time in the future. With regards to war, it seems to me that the Iraqis, Obama and McCain are saying the same thing. Obama is saying that we will bring a majority of our armed forces home in 16 months contingent on conditions.
And despite the Iraqis backtracking on their statement supporting Obama’s position, you can guarantee that privately they want the occupation to end sooner rather than later. Even today the Iraqis are saying they are hopeful that troops can be out of Iraq by 2010. I believe that is a worthy goal and one we should attempt to reach rather than go blindly into the future as McCain suggests.
James/Doug:
Whatever you want to call it, timetable, time horizon, etc. it is CONDITIONS BASED.
Compare that to Obama’s absolute pledge to get U.S. troops OUT by a date certain (except of course with multiple refinements as to what the fine print is).
When it comes to trusting who is going to do a better job wrapping up this war and bringing our troops home there is only one RESPONSIBLE choice: McCain.
I wish we had more choices than that but we don’t. It’s either McCain, a maverick who occasionally offends conservatives or a former Chicago community organizer who CONSTANTLY offends conservatives.
But there is one issue on which McCain does not offend conservatives: He will make sure we don’t leave Iraq before VICTORY is secured. Obama would do just the opposite.
Malaki needs to hold a press conference where he explains that he is learning rapidly from the western press how important it is to distinguish between actual free speech and the dishonesty and propaganda that the current press seems to cherish. He is repeatedly being misquoted and mistranslated, usually in ways that make it sound like a repudiation of Bush and the US military. This amounts to enemy propaganda, and it must stop.
I’m with James Manning here… (hey James… always nice to have you visit!) … at least in part. Basically we’re talking Fiji v Granny Smith v Mackintosh apples here. They are all a way to withdraw, and deal with the events on the ground that come up during the process.
And yes, I believe the Iraqis prefer a fast withdrawal over an elongated one… as do I. But shoud events arise where they need aid to protect their young govt, I believe they will have no qualms in asking for a temporary pause or change in plans to protect their progress.
But I do disagree that McCain is “blind” to the future. I’ve stated this on other threads, and will repeat it here. The only difference between BHO’s withdrawal, and GWB or JSM’s withdrawal is that BHO will promise a firm date. But if and when that date must be changed, you’ll find an Obama President on your nightly TV screen, telling you that unforeseen events will be pausing the withdrawal he promised, so he can’t make his date. But he’ll then assure you that the troops will come home once that event is dealt with. Okay… this differs from the others how??
By contrast, outgoing GWB, and possible incoming JSM both know that those events are likely to happen, and that firm deadlines are likely not to be met. Why promise what is most probably going to be morphed? Great if everything goes smooth, but things like this are genuinely not predictable.
So one promises a date, and will change it. Or… “check’s in the mail”.
The others do not make false promises of dates. One is telling you what the masses want to hear, but will deviate from that promise in a heartbeat. The others are telling you the truth… why set a date that is not likely to be met?
Even Obama has stated that we must be “as careful getting out as were as careless getting in”. And we all know that even Obama’s plan would leave about 50,000 troops in the region. Shifting some to Afghanistan. So, not all of the troops will be gone in 16 months. The withdrawal could easily change if conditions warrant but the overall goal is to hand the responsibility of securing Iraq to Iraqis.
And I think MH is right that Obama will have some freedom to adjust while McCain will simply say we are winning, victory is near and still spend $10 billion a month. The military has done what we’ve asked them to do and its time we reward them by bringing them home. I’m sure the generals can devise a plan to successfully transition from Iraq and meet the security needs of Iraq. But Iraq will have to stand up – as they did in Basra when the Brits turned the region over to the Iraqi forces.
Maliki has some political capital and he can use it to improve security in Sunni regions and begin the process of working on political issues with the opposing factions.
Who do you think Maliki hopes will be the next POTUS ?
He wants the fellow muslim guy, Bud Day was right!
I think Maliki can’t lose re POTUS 09. If he gets McCain…the Iranian threat is deterred, and support from US forces is unwaverable. If he gets Obama, then US forces will stay, but there’ll be more US, national, and international unity behind the mission because Dems will FINALLY be vested in American success more than in American defeat.
Scott’s conclusion is right even if the reasoning is off. Should Maliki be relected, our POTUS shouldn’t affect him that much. The question is what is Maliki willing to do to get relected? If he hasn’t fullly stabbed the Bush adminstration in the back, he has at least let it be known he has a knife.
Now now, James. That is not at all what I said.
Both BHO and JSM will be adjusting during the withdrawal period. The difference is that BHO will promise an end date, and move the goal posts as they come. In the meantime, he’ll present this to his adoring fans as another campaign promise that he’ll sweet talk his way thru if he wins the Oval Office.
JSM will not set a definite end date, but do it as fast as the events on the ground, and troops/equipment can be moved.
As far as who Maliki wants… I agree with Scott. However we do know who Chavez and Hamas want for the next US POTUS. As Barry Rubin said…
Hezbollah and other Al Queda groups (like the Al Queda in Iraq group remnants) have gone on record as calling for Democrats to get elected. Al Queda command councils and senior leaders have as well.
As to Maliki stabbing Bush Admin (lame duck admin) in the back…so? Who cares? It’s a lame duck admin that’s good for nothing anymore except finger-pointing (see also Democrats’ Congress).
I was going to ignore Fit’s “stab in the back” remark, Scott. But since you brung it up… it should always be remembered that Maliki’s only concern is what is good for him and Iraq. He will take an “Iraq first” attitude, just as we should take an “America first” attitude. There is nothing wrong with that.
Totally agree MH!
This is just crazy; it’s back, again!:
See the video here:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/on_film.php#comments
All the networks are now carrying this and it’s gonna be pretty certain this time; not much chance of a walk-back.
John’s pissed here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2ODA2YjVjZDA0M2ZhZTk2MWY5OWE5ZGFlYmI4ODE=
Ramesh finds some hope for McCain still:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVkYTEyZTJmNWZjNTcwZjc0MDY2YjJkODZlMThiNDU=
Gateway Pundit almost has a stroke and wants to tout a line of Obama’s failings on Iraq and emphasize ‘conditions’, while going into denial mode that the news media cycle is now running away with the story that when it comes to time-frames on a withdrawal, Maliki and Obama are a near match.
Things are catching fire!
How is it “back again”, Doug? Withdrawal – per the Iraqis in the past few weeks, and per Petraeus’ multiple comments and testimonies that we will be able to withdraw troops – is, and has always been the plan.
Obama, the “broken clock” that is right once or twice a day, now finds that conditions that were not good for the Iraqis last year when he touted withdrawal, are good to go now – no thanks to him or the DNC. He’s like a damaged goods race car on the track… at some point in the race, he is actually a car in the heat with others for a short time…. but many laps behind.
Withdrawal will take place under any POTUS… under Bush now, and continuing under whomever in late January. Therefore, it’s absurd to battle over withdrawal plan vs withdrawal plan since either one will suffer change in the event ground conditions flare up. In essence, there is very little difference between either candidate right now.
The big difference is that the judgment to get us to withdrawal reality – a withdrawal that the Iraqis agreed they were ready to attempt now – only belongs in the GWB/JSM column… and not BHOs.
Mata Harley, at this point since you trust Bush and you deny all the evidence I have presented for a significant distinction between Obama and McCain-Bush (that is one wants to end the occupation, the others want a long-term presence with large numbers of troops, I suggest you examine the rhetoric of each of the two camps for clues to the difference in their Iraq intentions.
We could start by looking at yesterday’s response by McC. to Maliki’s interview:
Then today: Meredith Viera asks John McCain about how the Iraqi government keeps finding commonality with Obama’s Iraq policy. McCain answers:
In the end, it is not up to the Iraqi government to decide what Iraqis want, ‘I decide what they want.’ — that’s how this is beginning to sound. Now it’s not transparent yet, it’s not a media sound bite, but how long can Bush and McCain say ‘no’ as the dust settles from all this.
I’m saying this: one side can say, ‘”conditions on the ground…” all they want’, but if that message starts to overshadow the tone and will of the message coming out of Iraq– that they want to get the troops out, out by 2010, and they aren’t messing around, then McCain will begin to look as tho’ he is bullying the Iraqi government, denying them their own national interests… then you will see Maliki having to show even more distance between him and McCain-Bush and if the media smells this, they will echo it and put it in their echo chamber ad nauseum.
I know you understand this is a very delicate matter for McCain. All he has is Iraq going for him; it’s his only ace in this game.
Doug, you do realize that your own quote backs up MH’s statement that withdrawal has always been the plan and continues to be, right? And…you do realize that American voters are voting for an American leader and will care more about the American leader than Iraqi leaders, right?
Love the effort at propaganda though-I mean, trying to market McCain as GWBII as if Obama’s foreign policy is soooooooo different…oh that’s rich.
Curious, did Doug see that Obama interview w Logan today where she made him admit that his unilateral strike policy towards Pakistan is the same policy as GWB’s? Or, perhaps the NYT piece today showing that Maliki’s quote in Speigel was made a misquote, and they took out the conditions on the ground part (a claim reiterated by the article that started this thread).
YES, there will be a withdrawal
YES, Iraq will want some US forces there for a long time-especially the ones building their infrastructure at no cost to the Iraqi govt, and the counter-terrorist troops fighting Al Queda groups in Iraq that have killed 50-75% of the civilian deaths in Iraq.
YES, Obama and McCain do have the same Iraq policy: get as many troops out as soon as possible (with “possible” meaning: conditions based, or conditions on the ground, etc).
…and yes, US forces are to continue their withdrawal because of American success that was impeded and opposed by Democrats and the left from before US troops even stepped into Iraq. That is to say, the troops can come home-not because of what Democrats did, but in spite of it.
Ya know, Scott just about covered it for me. But a couple of 2 cents worth to add
What you fail to acknowledge is that the US cannot, and will not, do anything the Iraqis themselves don’t want and agree to. ala, they ask us to leave, or do not sign SOFAs or renew mandates… we’re outta there. If they want us to stay, we hammer out agreements that work for both sides in order to do so.
Only to your ears, Doug. The Iraqis are in full control of their situation. See above. Been the facts since day one, and remains the facts today. You can nuance til the cows come home. But it won’t change the facts one iota. Withdrawal is withdrawal. Both DNC and GOP candidates will leave 50-60K personnel there.. for how long, again depends on what the Iraqis dictate, which will be determined by their progress and ground events.
However BHO can claim no moral success in getting to this point. He has, along with his party, fought this moment since before the Surge. He is, as usual, getting a free ride, and oblivious to his own shortcomings. I, however, am not.
Oh… forgot, *must* address this…
Oh so wrong. By Iraq’s progress getting it to the point that withdrawal can and will start… as Petraeus told us last year and this spring, so it’s no surprise… the Iraq playing field between the two candidates has been leveled.
Aces? In order of import, IMHO?
1: oil supply, nuke power plants, affordable energy along with simultaneous alternative energy (including drilling). Your boy will be buried on that.
2: In tangent with above, taxes. By the time BHO sunsets the Bush tax cuts=tax hike, then piles on the taxes for his energy programs… all the while never giving the average American relief from the high gas prices by sending the signal to the speculators that the US will increase the supply of oil… you’ll watch the citizens rebel against the tax and spend BHO and his merry DNC Congress. Just where does he think we’ll get all this extra money to hand over for alternative energies? They will “conserve” our driving habits to the point that it affects businesses… never going for vacations, going out to dinner, etal.
3: Pakistan and foreign policy. JSM hasn’t burned his bridges there, and BHO hasn’t got a clue how to win Afghanistan. That is a worse “quagmire” in the making than Iraq could ever dream to be because it is intrinsically tied to Pakistan. BHO is a man threatening invasion of a US ally. He is, as bigpapa said so tersely, “an idiot”.