UPDATE # 3: Politico has an explanation of Maliki’s behavior but it also suggest that he has lost control of what he was trying to do.
ASTONISHING QUOTE OF THE DAY – AP’s Baghdad bureau chief, Robert H. Reid, writes in ‘Analysis: Iraq playing US politics for best deal’: ‘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. …
‘With the talks bogged down, the Iraqis sensed desperation by the Americans to wrap up a deal quickly before the presidential campaign was in full swing. ***’Let’s squeeze them,’ al-Maliki told his advisers … The squeeze came July 7, when al-Maliki announced in Abu Dhabi that Iraq wanted the base deal to include some kind of timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. …
‘[T]he White House agreed this past week to a ‘general time horizon’ for withdrawing American troops — short of a firm timetable but a dramatic shift from the administration’s refusal to accept any deadline for ending the mission in Iraq.’
On Maliki’s unconvincing walk-back of that endorsement, an administration official told the aforementioned Jonathan Martin: ‘We suspected Maliki didn’t intend for his comment to be interpreted the way it was. He didn’t know it was being interpreted that way. The U.S. government let the Iraqis know that it was being picked up widely. The Iraqis issued a statement to make Maliki’s position clear.’
Maliki may be wiser now. I’m sure he does not understand that Democrats will throw him and his country under the bus just as quickly as they threw Pastor Wright and a numbers of others, including Obama’s grandmother who raised him. No one can get between Obama and his ambition and be safe.
UPDATE #2: Maliki still has not been able to control how his words are being used against him. The New York Times today repeats the Der Spiegel version of his comments.
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.”
There is still no inclusion of the words:
Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.”
That caveat changes the meaning of the statement. Either the NY Times deliberately omitted that sentence (not an unreasonable assumption) or the story is still going.
UPDATE: It looks as thougn Der Spiegel lied about Maliki’s remarks but we will see how this plays out.
Asked in an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel of when he would like to see American forces leave Iraq, Maliki said: “As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned.” He then added that “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.”
Maliki has just gotten a lesson about international media. They are no friends of Iraq.
Yesterday, Der Spiegel, the German magazine published a story that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki supported Obama’s plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 16 months. A furor ensued and Maliki put out a clarification that he had been misquoted. The left was having none of it and even was alleging tha Maliki’s denial was false.
The retraction claimed that Maliki’s comments were “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately,” which might be plausible if there were only a single sentence in question. However, how likely is it that Spiegel mistranslated three separate comments? Here are the relevant excerpts from the interview:
“Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops — and it should be short.
….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.
….Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic….The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”
There’s just no way that all three of these passages were mistranslated.
Why, when his success as the head of a free country is at stake, would Maliki make such an error ?
The most plausible explanation to me is that this was Iraqi politics speaking.
Why did al-Maliki do it? Your choice of interpretations, not mutually exclusive:
a) “Yanks Out!” is a winning slogan in Iraqi politics, and al-Maliki has an election to fight in October.
b) He figures Obama is going to win, and this way Obama owes him one.
c) He thinks he’s now strong enough to take out the Sadrists and either make make a deal with some group of Sunnis or just rule them as a subject population after our troops leave.
d) “100 Years” genuinely creeps him out.
I’m not offering any bets about what al-Maliki really wants in the way of a timetable. But I’d bet something that he really doesn’t want a long term protectorate, and/or doesn’t think he can make that fly politically in Iraq.
My personal theory is that Maliki doesn’t understand that Democrats want to ditch Iraq and they don’t care what happens after we leave. Maliki just gave them the cover they needed. It may have been a fatal mistake.
Those Republicans, who think that letting Obama win the election and who are then counting on him being the worst president in American history, might have gotten their wish compliments of Maliki. All we have to do now is survive it.
