More from Maliki

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq-sly_22jul22,0,519982.story

Maliki told Obama he hopes the troops will go home "by the end of 2010," according to Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, marking the first time the Iraqi government has specified a time limit on the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
I'm not entirely sure how one can spin the fact that Maliki's own spokesman is who said this.

But a statement issued by Obama's congressional delegation, including Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)..."Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces," the statement said. "Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces."
This quote and other things we've heard from Prime Minister Maliki frankly speak for themselves.

Dabbagh cautioned, however, that any timetable should be flexible enough to accommodate changing conditions, "to ensure that we won't be attacked by any enemy inside or outside Iraq."
It is important to remember that Obama has said he'd be open to this, specifically in saying that he would leave enough troops behind to protect our non-military personnel, train Iraqi forces, and conduct counter-terrorism. He has always said that if it was obvious Iraq was being invaded or Al-Qaeda was growing he would re-deploy to stop it. Sen. McCain has been far more specific in saying that it would be conditions that would dictate when our troops are drawn down and only conditions. Sen. Obama's plan is more of a stance that forces the issue and Sen. McCain's policy is a stance of being at the pace it happens to go. Both men, as said previously, share in the ultimate goal.

However, some Iraqi officials have said they may scale back the talks and reach only a temporary arrangement with the Bush administration, leaving it up to the next president to negotiate a permanent deal with Iraq. If Obama is elected, the Iraqis will be able to negotiate a deal that fits their goal of seeing the troops gone by the end of 2010.
Now two things about this wording: 1) McCain has never said he'd go against what the Iraqi's want. He has always said that if the Iraqi's want us out we'll leave. The idea that Sen. John McCain wouldn't agree to Iraq's wish that we have all of our troops gone by the end of 2010 is disingenuous. 2) Iraq is clearly not happy with President Bush's demands. This is a shrewd political move by Maliki. We're already seeing some public concessions and I'm sure some non-public concessions as well from our administration. Apparently they still aren't enough which calls into question just what President Bush could be asking for. One huge issue seems to be the demand that our troops and citizens be immune to Iraqi laws. Frankly, it isn't likely that President Bush allows this kind of hit to his legacy, he'll do what it takes to get an agreement done no matter what.

"I don't think that there are deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se," Obama told ABC News in an interview. "There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, of a timetable that doesn't take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."
The nuance (some would say spin) we'll most likely hear from Obama once he's back will be something along the lines of "my ultimate goal will still be 16 months but if it became obvious more troops were needed or withdrawal needed to be halted I'd do so in order not to lose the gains that have been made". Very similar to things Obama has said in the past. Unfortunately, a great deal of people seem to be hearing only what they want to when Obama speaks.

Read more...

Maliki interview transcript

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html

First remember that despite claims of being wrongly translated, it was translated and released by Maliki's own people. Having read the transcript, the article did report the quotes with a bit of a slant however. Maliki's quotes that pertain to the US presidential race-with added italics to show what is important not to ignore:
Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

Now agreement was emphasized because it is important to recognize that he is talking about an arrangement with our country being the victory, not simply having our troops out of there country being a victory; despite that being the ultimate goal for both sides.

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. 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.

It is important to post the question first to show that the interviewer in no way put Obama's name in Maliki's mind. Maliki brought up Obama without prodding. It's very important to notice the wording "slight changes". It should not be overlooked that Maliki isn't implicitly endorsing the entirety of Obama's plan.

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Him using the words "short term" is much more indicative of how much longer he-and as the last sentence shows, Iraqi's in general-feels this is going to last, not whether it'll be only 16 months from now or 16 months from when a new president would take office but that it shouldn't be 4 years from now (4 years was said simply as an example time frame).

Read more...