Subscribe to Breaking NewsIraq’s Prime Minister Weighs in on Obama Withdrawal Plan
Barack Obama meeting with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in Baghdad on Monday.
If there is one issue that arguably helped more than any other to propel Barack Obama to the nomination, it was that of the war in Iraq. Had Hillary Clinton come out against the war instead of voting for it, she would have left no opening for Obama to use the issue of the war to stir the grassroots of the Democratic Party and the netroots of the Internet to mobilize for him and against her. So it is now the junior senator from Illinois, not the junior senator from New York who is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
And while the Iraq war has fallen far behind the economy — which 44% of those surveyed in mid-June by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press rated as the most important issue for them — Pew found that 19% ranked Iraq as the most important issue facing the country, just ahead of energy and gas prices at 17% and ten points ahead of health care at 9%.
But Obama’s trip to Iraq — presenting him with an opportunity to articulate a clear and convincing policy on the war — has already tripped up Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq’s semi-competent Shia prime minister. “Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama’s troop withdrawal plans,” the German magazine Der Spiegel reported over the weekend, quoting Maliki as saying of Obama’s intention to withdraw the bulk of US troops from Iraq within 16 months, “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes.”
The Spiegel report forced Maliki into wild spin control, the prime minister denying having expressed support for Obama’s plan and claiming that he was misquoted by Spiegel. But Spiegel — the most respected of Germany’s newsmagazines, which makes Time and Newsweek look fluffy in comparison with its Teutonic seriousness — stood by its report and on Monday, Spiegel posted a transcript of the interview with Maliki on its website.
“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,” Maliki is quoted by Spiegel as saying in the interview. “But that isn’t the case at all,” he continues. “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 [from the Bush administration] were unacceptable to us.
The flap over Maliki’s interview with Der Spiegel is bound to embarass John McCain, anxious as the putative Republican nominee is to portray Obama as conceding defeat in Iraq. The Maliki vs. Spiegel affair is also likely to embarrass George W. Bush, who undoubtedly views the Iraqi prime minister as his man in Baghdad — or at least, the closest that he’s going to get to a compliant ally-cum-puppet in the waning days of his second term as president.
Ms. Park,
I am delighted that Senator Obama’s position is in-line with Mr. al-Maliki’s, though you do your position and your candidate a real disservice by associating his position with a “…semi-competent Shia prime minister.”
I do agree, though, that recent events will be an indelible blemish on Senator McCain’s campaign. President Bush’s is blemished enough as it is.
Please accept my apologies. My final sentence should read, “President Bush’s reign is blemished enough as it is.”
This is just grandstanding. The war is about oil and the US, with McCain or Obama in the White House, will not withdraw until the US has hegemony in the Middle East.
The only solution is the immediate and total withdrawal of all US military, mercenary, spying and ’security’ forces from the region and cutting the purse strings that pay for the zionists ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies against the Palestinians.
The US should not just remove the Troops from that region but from around the world. The US was established by our founding fathers to be a republic not an empire; which both the theocratic Republicans and the socialist Democrats have turned this once great nation into.
However, on the Palestinian issue, The Palestinians cause a lot of the trouble that befalls them. So stop blaming one side in that conflict there is enough blame for all lets not forget the British who conquered that land and then gave it to Israel. It is wrong to blame Israel for the current borders because they were attacked and won the land.
Should the US be involved? NO! should the US give money to either side? NO! But the anti Zionist crowed has to acknowledge the Arab role in creating the Palestinian problem.
Further, I find your characterization of the problem as being ethnic cleansing and apartheid to be pandering and over exaggeration of the problem. If there is to be a two state solution then it is not apartheid to segregate and wall oneself away from a violent element.
I find it funny, that even though the “transcript” of the interview is posted, there is no reference inthe transcript to what the paper is reporting….
Bill, Do you know how much oil the USA imports from Iraq?? Better research,…
Censoredagain, Allthough I don’t agree with you 100%, we have made committments to governments around the world, and should stand behind those commitments. In the case of the Palestinians, I agree, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Of course that happens when parties, groups ethnic or otherwise, refuse to work to compromise with others. There is a time for rigor and a time to bend.
Raz, get a grip. Read what I had to say. I spoke of the US fighting for regional hegemony to control and sell the oil, not necessarily to import all of it.
I’m not alone in that opinion.
Republican Senator CHARLES HAGEL: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.” (Speaking at Catholic University, Sept. 24, 2007)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman ALAN GREENSPAN, in his book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Democratic Senator JOHN TESTER: “We’re still fighting a war in Iraq and people who are honest about it will admit we’re there over oil.” (Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2007)
General JOHN ABIZAID: retired commander of CENTCOM: “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that.” (Speaking at Stanford University, Oct. 13, 2007)
Raz, you’re one of three people left on the planet who don’t understand that the genocide in Iraq is linked to oil piracy. As for the commitments made by Clinton or Bush and others who lied about Iraq, they’re as valid as the commitments the US Government made to Native Americans. That is, they are totally invalid.
As for Palestine the problem began when the zionists colonized Palestine, practicing ethnic cleansing and enforcing an apartheid system on Palestinians.
The US should get out and stay out of the region and let the parties on the ground solve the problem as best they can. The best solution is a democratic, socialist, secular Palestine.