Facts on the Ground

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's unremarkable on its own terms for someone to tell a periodical that they think Barack Obama is basically right about Iraq, but in this case the person talking is Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki being interviewed by Der Spiegel so that seems pretty noteworthy. We shouldn't slavishly adhere to whatever the Iraqi government happens to want (if they say we need 100,000 soldiers in Iraq for the next 20 years, we need to tell them no way) but as even John McCain and George Bush used to admit if the Iraqis want us to leave we really have to leave.

Maliki here -- and for the past couple of weeks more broadly -- is addressing himself to the most fundamental "facts on the ground" in Iraq of all, the gross unpopularity of the American military presence. Under those circumstances, only real desperation (such as the terrible situation prevailing in 2006) makes it make sense for Maliki to uncritically endorse an open-ended presence. Whatever it is he would like to get from US forces (and you've got to believe it's plenty, given that plenty of security issues still exist for Iraq) the larger imperative is to get it in the context of also getting a plan to get Iraq's sovereignty back.

Comments

If Maliki continues to ask for a withdrawal timetable, then the goal posts will move again. I hope the next move isn't an attack on Iran, but what else could it be?

Posted by Deggjr | July 19, 2008 8:57 AM

"if the Iraqis want us to leave we really have to leave."

Somehow, I suspect that if a Democrat said that, the right-wing talking point would be "We shouldn't have to ask anybody's permission to keep its troops wherever we see the need!"

Posted by BarryG | July 19, 2008 9:12 AM

I am unhappy that Maliki addresses this fundamental question of American policy in Iraq - not "Is the surge working?" but "What does the government of Iraq want to have happen next?" and "Which presidential candidate is more or less in line with the Iraqi government?" - in Der Spiegel, not Der Times or Der Post. It's almost as if Maliki sensed that he would have trouble getting his position stated prominently and clearly enough if he said it to a US newspaper.

Posted by MF Lehman | July 19, 2008 9:18 AM

Looks like Maliki is a very early voter.

Posted by Aleks | July 19, 2008 9:41 AM

There's a world of difference between watching events and reacting to them, and just stating that 16 months is the answer, regardless of the situation. That difference exists even if they end up having the same result, because the former doesn't telegraph your intentions to the enemy

Posted by James Robertson | July 19, 2008 10:04 AM

Even the Bush administration has come to realize that some sort of promised withdrawal must be made to the Iraqis. Maliki has made it clear that his country won't take an indefinite major U.S. presence, as McCain promises.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 19, 2008 10:06 AM

I don't think anyone is saying that even if there is a sudden change in circumstances on the ground where continuing American presence is required for a limited period of time that we would continue to execute a preset withdrawal plan willy nilly. The point is to reassure the American and Iraqi people that the US will withdraw its military presence, and give an idea of when roughly when that will happen. Large numbers can't be withdrawn quickly and safely anyway, so everyone will know that it is happening in plenty of time to prepare. Moreover, it will need to be coordinated with the Iraqi government, so our potentially most dangerous enemies the Shi'ite militias will know about it soon enough.

The fact that a withdrawal can be tricky and dangerous emphasizes why it is absolutely critical that the United States never again go to war because it makes draft dodging old men feel like warriors, makes crazy profits for shoddy work by a few corporations, boosts cabal (stet) news ratings, and makes pretty reporters feel like spies. War is deadly serious stuff and it must always be treated as such.

Posted by MF Lehman | July 19, 2008 10:49 AM

Someday we really should pull out of a country that affects to hate American forces on its soil, as a lesson to the rest of them. Defend your own DMZ, South Korea.

Of course, this is commenting on a Matthew Yglesias post, so it's not like it's informed by actual facts about the middle east in any way.

Posted by Mgmax | July 19, 2008 10:56 AM

Of course there's a world of difference between watching events and responding to them and planning to assault innocents no matter what the facts on the ground.

So James, you dimwittted troll, where are the WMDs that Bush's invasion was to eliminate? What happened to the reports from the weapons inspectors? Oh, that's right, Bush needed to get the war started based on a timetable, not the facts on the ground.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 19, 2008 10:57 AM

'Defend your own DMZ, South Korea.'

They can do that.

Posted by David Tomlin | July 19, 2008 11:06 AM

Naturally, no Iraqi government wants us there, unles they're on the verge of being overthrown. Suppose things go smoothly: then we have a Shi'ite government of Iraq, probably less stable than that of Lebanon, and fairly friendly to Iran.

No threat to the US in that, but then Iraq was never a threat to the US. So how's the whole ball of wax worth six hundred billion dollars and 4100 KIA to the US?

Posted by gcochran | July 19, 2008 11:15 AM

As entertaining as it would be to reargue the initial invasion, it's irrelevant - we are already there. So instead of going back, as "Not as stupid as Will Allen" wants to, we need to discuss what the best plan forward from here is. As much as I disagree with matt, he's at least looking at the current situation, and not fixated on 2003.

Posted by James Robertson | July 19, 2008 11:44 AM

It's important in the sense that next time you wanna get your war on everyone is remember that you have piss poor ideas.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 12:15 PM

Poor James, when the facts on the ground don't support his position "he's not interested in the debate."

So James, where are the WMDs? Where did Bush pay any attention to the "facts on the ground" in his assault on Iraq? How long did it take him to come around to noticing that his unprovoked assault on the Iraqi people was leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths?

If you want to talk about the here and now, when is Bush going to get around to providing enough security for the conquered people of Baghdad so that the violence isn't at 2004 levels, but at 2002 levels? What is Bush doing to restore electricity, to deal with the ongoing displaced citizens.

There is no evidence, you dimwitted dodger of facts, that the butcher of Baghdad has ever paid any attention to facts on the ground in Iraq and every reason to believe that his every move has been about domestic politics.

The fact that Bush's unprovoked assault paid no attention to the facts on the ground is the reason why we are talking about your inability to understand Obama's plans for going forward in the clusterfuck that is Bush's occupation of Iraq.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 19, 2008 12:16 PM

It is pretty funny that the same idiots who gave us the brutal and unprovoked assault on the people of Iraq now presume to lecture us on how to deal with the conditions there.

Until you can admit, James, that you were mindbogglingly wrong in your analysis of the "threat" posed by Iraq's "WMDs" there really is no reason to take any of your "analysis" seriously.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 19, 2008 12:25 PM

So, do they use the term "throw [X] under the bus" in Iraq? Because that's what I think Maliki just did to McCain.

Posted by Just Dropping By | July 19, 2008 12:41 PM

I guess the Bush “Phased Vague Event Horizon Leave Possibility Eventuality Subjecttochanguality Thing” from yesterday wasn’t good enough for Maliki. Maybe he didn’t get the memo that Iraq is only supposed to be used for partisan Republican purposes, not Democratic ones. Petraeus should have told him that. In any event i look forward to the next few days of the media explaining to me why this isn’t a massive rebuke to Bush and a crippling blow to McCain.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com

Posted by Matthew | July 19, 2008 1:02 PM