Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's Endorsement of Obama's Withdrawal Plan

Ilan Goldenberg writes:

It's Over: Not much to say here.  Other than the fact that this is a huge huge huge deal.  Article speaks for itself.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. "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"

And

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for. "Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

And

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Is there anything left to say?

Yes, there is. Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now.

Comments

[M. Carey]

Question:
I wonder what Obama means by "Residual Troops" ??

[Maynard Handley]

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't"

He's a politician, and of course he has to be polite. But of course it's a defeat; a defeat like Vietnam only more so because this time the enemy was even wimpier, and it wasn't like the Russians were there in the background.

Now personally I think it's a great thing that the US' grand strategy of "every so often throw a little nation against the wall to make the others toe the line" has been so soundly made a mockery of. But that still doesn't change the fact that it was a defeat, and that, when the US pulls out and there is dancing in the streets across the entire Middle East, the TV headlines will be saying in Arabic "Great Satan DEFEATED".

[anne]

There was no American defeat, no defeat other than for the Iraqi people who have been terribly harmed, harmed beyond repair for millions, yes for millions. There has been a terrible defeat for Iraqis, indeed, and all withdrawal will mean is that rebuilding of lives that can be rebuilt may be just a little closer. We have not been defeated, but the Iraqis have been and the Afghans are being defeated as well as are the Somalis.

[bigTom]

I have heard that Bush is now quietly backing the inevitable withdrawal, as well as beginning an opening with Iran. So suddenly we find Obama-Bush on the side of reason, and McCain left stranded with outdated militarist policy. Who wudda thunk. Anne is of course right. There are many losers here. The Iraqi people first and formost. But also the American people, whose economy is on the brink. And the neocons whose reputation is in tatters (why can't we clean house of them). And the few winners (oil companies who were hoping for fat Iraqi contracts, etc.) look like the goodies will be snatched from their grasp. But of course the Iranians, whom we so love to hate, are clearly big winners here. Frankly I don't see the regaining of the traditional Persian influence in the region as a good or a bad thing. But clearly that will be a serious psychological shock to our foreign policy establishment.

[bigTom]

What about the residual force? IMHO this is a pyscho-political necessity for ourselves. We have so filled our people with the specter of Al Qaeda in Iraq following us home, that we have to pretend we can continue to hit them. And my guess is that a postwithdrawal Iraq will have such a huge appetite for international (and especially American) aide for rebuilding, that they will probably allow ourselves to retain some sort of residual force (although probably with constrained rules of engagement).

[Nordic Mousse]

"There was no American defeat"

If it isn't a defeat for American foreign policy and America's reputation, I don't know what it is. At any rate, it's hard to shoot yourself in the foot in plain view of everyone and call it a victory

[Captain Dan]

Does anyone think that Blackwater will be welcome as part of a residual force?

[Captain Dan]

Cheney must be part of any Impeachment and Conviction package.

[stewart]

It's a defeat fro militaristic stupidity and triumphalism, it's a victory for sane foreign policy with a view to goals, consequences, and planning (not wishful thinking that if we smash enough things the pieces will mend themselves). Given that Obama is vastly preferred over McCain everywhere outside the US, the notion that McCain has a lead in foreign policy is laughable.

[erewhon]

Success punishes the rich and powerful, because power corrupts. As Mancur Olson wrote, there is a silver lining to defeat. The US emerged from WW II as a military colossus, at least in our own minds. Intervening in Korea was good, but hanging on until North Korea surrendered unconditionally was foolish. Truman was wise enough to say no attack on the ChiCom homeland, but he didn't understand that North Korea had an endless reservoir of helpers on the other side of the Yalu River. So that war was never resolved- failure to resolve the Korean War contributed to the Vietnam debacle. I was there in Vietnam, a draftee. We couldn't talk to the people, couldn't tell who was on our side and we were pretty harsh with the locals, just as we are harsh today with the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politician Petraeus pretends to understand counter-insurgency but he relies heavily on unmanned Predator bombing, which is guaranteed to kill people whom the locals regard as innocents, even if the Pentagon insists that they were legitimate targets. John McCain and Curt LeMay never grasped this fact about bombing: it can knock down buildings and kill people but it can't terminate populist guerilla resistance; in fact it stimulates resistance. The US has been unable to deal with populist uprisings since WW II in spite of all its military hardware. Neither the Pentagon nor the American public ahs come to terms with this.

Israeli destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981. The UN Security Council voted to condemn Israel but Sadaam Hussein had no real friends outside Iraq. In that era, Arab states still believed that they could fight tank battles against the Israelis. Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda have very few tanks. Many Israelis foolishly believe that bombing Iran would be a replay of the Osirak raid, just as Donald Rumsfeld spoke of shock and awe. Cheney doesn’t understand that Iran has helpers beyond its borders, just as North Korea did in the 1950s. Samantha Power understands these new realities, but will the next secretary of defense understand? I don't see much evidence that Mr. Gates does and none that bombs away McCain understands anything of the modern world. No wonder that he avoids using a computer.