Bush, Maliki agree on not setting withdrawal timeline

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 ?
.

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’:

…
No, seriously, what does the time horizon actually mean? The administration is adamant that it does not imply a fixed timetable . . . or even necessarily a withdrawal. According the NYT:

The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe. . . .

On the prospect of dates for American withdrawals, Mr. Johndroe, the White House spokesman, said that the agreement would not prescribe American troop levels over time, but rather reflect a transition to Iraqi command. “The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions,” Mr. Johndroe said in an e-mail message. “The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be.”

The Iraqi government, however, described the agreement in somewhat different terms. The NYT continues:

Under pressure from political parties wanting a diminishing American role, Mr. Maliki began demanding something in the agreement that would make it clear that American troops were on the way out. Iraq’s statement on Friday, reflecting those internal sensitivities, referred more specifically than the American version to “a time frame for the complete transfer of the security responsibilities to the hands of the Iraqi security as preface to decrease the number of the American forces and withdraw them later from Iraq.”

In Baghdad, a member of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, Ali al-Adeeb, said the withdrawal of American and other foreign forces was fundamental to an accord. “The Iraqi government considers the determination of a specific date for the withdrawal of foreign forces an important issue to deal with,” he said. “I don’t know what the American side thinks, but we consider it the core of the subject.”
…

So what explains the different interpretations? And if the Maliki government appears set on establishing some timetable, why did they sign on to a more ambiguous time horizon? Two possibilities suggest themselves:

1. The Iraqi leadership deep down wants a fixed timetable for a complete withdrawal, despite contradictory statements suggesting otherwise, but they were forced to agree to more ambiguous language by the Bush administration.

2. The Iraqi leadership actually wants the U.S. to transition to a support role and reduce its military footprint sooner rather than later, but it is not in favor of a fixed timetable or a complete withdrawal in the near to intermediate term. Nevertheless, to appease rising nationalist sentiment and sovereignty concerns in an Iraqi election year, the Maliki government wants to appear to be demanding some kind of schedule for U.S. withdrawal.

Explanation #2 seems much more likely given the recognition among many in Maliki’s coalition that they will require some residual military presence and support from the United States for several years to come.

If it is true, however, that the Iraqi leadership wants this kind of residual support, and this accounts for the nature of the agreement, Dr. iRack wants to know what the Bush administration demanded from Maliki in exchange for this commitment? Apparently zip, nada, nothing, zilch. So, yet again, the administration failed to exploit our rapidly diminishing leverage to extract concessions from the Maliki government on the political front that might actually help produce lasting stability in Iraq.
…

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-horizon.html

Find out why they got ‘zip, nada …” by reading the rest.

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.

Who do you think Maliki hopes will be the next POTUS ?

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.

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…

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

This is just crazy; it’s back, again!:

(AP) Face to face with Iraq’s leaders, Barack Obama [re]gained [(my change)] fresh support Monday for the idea of pulling all U.S. combat forces out of the war zone by 2010. But the Iraqis stopped short of actual timetables or endorsement of Obama’s pledge to withdraw American troops within 16 months if he wins the presidency.

The Democratic presidential contender also got a military briefing — and a helicopter tour — from the top U.S. commander in the region, Gen. David Petraeus, and he met with a few of the nearly 150,000 U.S. troops now well into the war’s sixth year.

Back in the U.S., Republican rival John McCain said he hoped Obama’s visit would open his eyes to the danger of withdrawal timetables. Said the Arizona senator, who was meeting with President Bush’s father, the former president, in Maine: “When you win wars, troops come home.” He said of Obama: “He’s been completely wrong on the issue.”

In Washington, the White House expressed displeasure with recent public comments by Iraqi leaders on the withdrawal question and suggested they might have the U.S. election on their minds.

As Obama visited Iraq for the first time in more than two years, comments Monday by the nation’s government spokesman roughly mirrored the Illinois senator’s withdrawal schedule and offered a glimpse of Iraq’s growing confidence as violence drops and Iraqi security forces expand their roles.

“We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said after Obama met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq’s position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share “a common interest … to schedule the withdrawal of American troops.”
…

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!

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:

“His [Maliki] domestic politics require him to be for us getting out,” said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “The military says ‘conditions based’ and Maliki said ‘conditions based’ yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.” [doug’s emphasis]

Then today: Meredith Viera asks John McCain about how the Iraqi government keeps finding commonality with Obama’s Iraq policy. McCain answers:

I have been there too many times. I’ve met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that’s what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be — the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it’s fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround.

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.