The Latest from Iraq

Am I the only one who thinks it's strange that precisely at the moment when we're seeing punditocratic cries for Barack Obama to acknowledge the "facts on the ground" in Iraq, and reject his timetable plan the actual facts on Iraq are developing in the direction of Iraqi insistence on a timetable? Well, I can't be the only one. Meanwhile, more facts on the ground include what appears to be the definitive breakdown of SOFA/SFA negotiations. And as Dr. Irak explains, this failure is plausibly the result of the Bush administration's opposition to timetables:

Because talks were not occurring against the backdrop of negotiating a U.S. withdrawal and a clear signal that we did not want to have the rights and prerogatives to stay in Iraq indefinitely, two things happened:

1. Iraqi sovereignty and nationalist anxieties were exacerbated by the perception that we were negotiating a permanent occupation (regardless of how many times the administration asserted it wasn't seeking permanent bases). This made it difficult for Iraqi officials--including those that wanted a long-term agreement negotiated under Bush--to sign on to anything.

2. U.S. negotiators framed the whole thing to the Iraqis as us wanting to negotiate a way to stay in Iraq. This reversed the leverage in negotiations, making us appear increasingly desperate to give the Iraqis concessions so we could stick around indefinitely. This made it look like we needed them more than they needed us, which is completely back-ass-ward.

I'm not sure I would chalk this all up to appearances, but by and large that's the right way to think about it. In the context of a framework for withdrawal, US military cooperation with the Iraqi government during the interim is viable. But in the Bush/McCain context with the shadow of endless occupation on the table, it's not possible to work anything out. Now that said, the United States is a huge rich powerful country and I'm sure a McCain administration determined to stay in Iraq indefinitely could prevail upon the Iraqi government to see things their way. But that approach cuts against the grain of the actual situation.

Comments

"reject his timetable plan"

This is not on you, but I am not really sure what his plan can really be called a timetable--it is dictated by 'facts on the ground,' generals, and 'stability.' And if there is a plan, I am not sure what it is.

Posted by jeff | July 13, 2008 1:36 PM

The moment I saw the headline this week about Maliki asking for a timetable, I thought 'well, the gig is up for McCain; he might as well concede now'. But then I failed to find many folks with the same reaction, so I set it aside.

The problem is that the press is still toying with the "Ah, see the surge really did work" meme. It will take a while for them to get it through their heads that this means that the Iraqis are now formally asking us to leave.

But can you imagine if this situation holds and is widely known in the fall? McCain loses all his foreign policy arguments at that point. And at that point he'll become the white Alan Keyes.

Posted by lampwick | July 13, 2008 1:52 PM

I don't claim any particular expertise, but the single "punditocratic cry for Barack Obama to acknowledge the 'facts on the ground' in Iraq" that I'm aware of came from George Packer in the "Comment" section of the most recent New Yorker.

For some reason, that op-ed piece (which did nothing but mouth the standard GOP Iraq boilerplate) seems to have been taken as some kind of sign that if Obama wants to win the election, he needs to abandon his stated intention to start withdrawing troops.

Posted by James Gary | July 13, 2008 1:59 PM

Lampwick, I agree you noticed a major shift that hasn't been widely acknowledged.

McCain's gig is not quite up because today's Republicans are good at winning presidential elections, peaking exactly on election day then becoming unpopular again before and after.

On the other hand, if Maliki says timetables then no argument McCain can make can counter that. Even if Bush trots some generals out, Iraq's prime minister trumps the argument in this situation.

So we have to see McCain's standing on the foreign policy issue deteriorate from here on out, and since that is his main strength, it is a bad sign for him.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 13, 2008 2:34 PM

It seems perfectly obvious to me that if McCain gets in, we aren't leaving, no matter what the Iraqis say; Maliki = Dubchek.

Posted by roac | July 13, 2008 2:55 PM

Maliki and his sort are trying to get Shiite-only control of the oil by asserting that a pure timetable, vs a condition-based timetable for withdrawal - is what is needed. Maliki is pushing to avoid fair distribution of oil revenue throughout the population, vs. just to his Shia cronies. And avoid the other two critical parts of the 3 missing 18 items of political reform - power sharing with the Provinces and the election of individuals to office vs voting for a Party offering "people to be named later".

Now Maliki gets the "pushback" from Shiites that think he is an Iranian stooge with DAWA, plus the Kurds and Sunnis that see the "no conditions-based" timetable as Maliki's way of attempting to avoid reforms he agreed to a year ago.

Meanwhile, Black Messiah, he of such superior judgement that he says Iraq and Al Qaeda's main combat force is a "distraction" to attacking within Pakistan to find 6 fugitives "from our due process civilian courts" has to chew on this:

Pakistan's top diplomat said Saturday there are no U.S. or other foreign military personnel on the hunt for Osama bin Laden in his nation, and none will be allowed in to search for the al-Qaida leader.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said his nation's new government has ruled out such military operations, covert or otherwise, to catch militants.
"Our government's policy is that our troops, paramilitary forces and our regular forces are deployed in sufficient numbers. They are capable of taking action there. And any foreign intrusion would be counterproductive," he said Saturday. "People will not accept it. Questions of sovereignty come in."

Posted by chris ford | July 13, 2008 2:59 PM

And not to put to fine a point on this, but last month our right-wing friend Al was decrying Matt's and the left's judgement on Iraq. The left was overestimating the anti-American sentiment in Iraq but in reality, the pro-American Maliki was leading us to a pro-American Iraq where US troops would be welcome.

At the time, I said we'll see by the end of the year, if the supposedly pro-American Maliki or Iraqi parliament passes either a basing agreement or the oil law the US wants.

We'll still see by the end of the year, but things are not looking good right now for right-wing judgement. Either McCain's or blogosphere comment posters'.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/security_framework_paradox.php

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 13, 2008 3:00 PM

The moment I saw the headline this week about Maliki asking for a timetable, I thought 'well, the gig is up for McCain; he might as well concede now'. But then I failed to find many folks with the same reaction, so I set it aside. The problem is that the press is still toying with the "Ah, see the surge really did work" meme.

Actually, the main thing I've noticed is that news outlets are trotting out various administration hacks, neocon pundits, and military shills to explain that Maliki and the other Iraqi officials are just kidding around and that the only reason they are mentioning timetables is to undercut Sadr ahead of the fall parliamentary elections and that, in fact, Maliki and all the "good Iraqis" love American soldiers, apple pie, and puppy dogs and want them to stay forever.

Posted by Just Dropping By | July 13, 2008 3:50 PM

Oh, jeff, it's 16 months at 1-2 divisions per month. Duh. It's not like Barack Obama hasn't been saying the exact same thing for a year and a half now.

But anyway, the real sticking point that is sinking the negotiations with Iraq is not our resistance to a timetable but Bush and Cheney's stubborn, dogged insistence on holding both troops and contractors harmless and immune to any prosecution for crimes committed in Iraq, past, present, or future. No rule of law for them, not now or ever.

For some strange reason Iraqis are not warming to this notion.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 13, 2008 3:53 PM

That should have been "brigades." There are now 15 combat brigades in Iraq.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 13, 2008 4:05 PM

Leaving aside all issues of Iraq, more and more soldiers are going to be needed in Afghanistan.

And if they don't come from Iraq, where are they going to come from?

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 13, 2008 4:25 PM

"It seems perfectly obvious to me that if McCain gets in, we aren't leaving, no matter what the Iraqis say; Maliki = Dubchek."

Oh, we're leaving all right. Either Maliki makes sure of that or Sadr and the Sunni nationalists will when they form a coalition government next year. Either Maliki joins up or Dawa and ISCI are out. And the new government won't allow the US to stay more than another 24 months tops - and probably 12 months.

It's not that Maliki is trying to undercut Sadr and the nationalists - although I'm sure he is. He's being told by Ayatollah Sistani - and the Iranians - that a permanent US presence is not acceptable. He has no choice but to go along, or he's a dead man.

Either the US leaves voluntarily under Obama, or they leave violently under McCain (or they leave this year violently after Bush attacks Iran). But they're leaving.

And either way, Iran wins.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 13, 2008 7:44 PM

"And if they don't come from Iraq, where are they going to come from?

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 13, 2008 4:25 PM"

John McCain is going to buy them from the Google. Duh.

Posted by Reality Man | July 13, 2008 10:56 PM

Timetables are like the six month status report. The difference Obama will bring to the situation is that withdrawal starts Jan 20th or so. The conditions are not "when to start" but "how fast".

Fifteen brigades at two a month would be eight months, or fifteen months at one per. But notice that Obama has always said "combat troops". It seems like he could also just move them onto a base and out of combat operations. Are you a combat troop if you are sitting around on base?

So one point is that we are not going to be sitting around for half a year waiting to find out if things are okay to get to the next brigade. We will know things are not going as fast as planned and Obama will have to explain it.

Posted by tomj | July 14, 2008 12:32 AM

It's all moot.

Latest report is that Bush has told Israel he will approve an Israeli air strike on Iran "in the future" "if they give him a good reason".

Amber Alert!
Get ready for war
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13130

President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece

And this is the result:

Laura Rozen, writing in Mother Jones, reports that a parade of Israeli officials – including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi – is due in Washington over the next two weeks to impress upon the Americans the urgent necessity of taking military action. Rozen spoke to neocon superhawk David Wurmser, former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs, who said:

"'Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard,' on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. 'What those in the administration who don't want Israel to act probably won't want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that [the president] might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli [government] really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing.'"

They may have gotten to the president already, as Rozen reports:

"A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy nor National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House."

It's on, folks. And as Scott Ritter says in his latest interview on Antiwar Radio, the reality is that Iran has upped the stakes. ANY attack on Iran will now result in a massive retaliation by Iran on US troops and Israel, as well as the shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. This means, according to Ritter, that the notion of a "limited strike" has now been taken off the table. Now Bush must commit to a full-scale attack on Iran, including Marine Corps and Special Forces boots on the ground IN Iran to deal with the Iranian ballistic missile threat and shore-to-sea missile threat around the Straits of Hormuz.

Although Ritter says the US is not currently positioned to take such a step, I'd say that the important point is that Bush and Cheney don't really care. ANY attack will be useful to them as it will give the Republicans a war bounce in the polls before the elections and will tie the hands of the incoming administration no matter who it is. And if they can get the Israelis to start it, so much the better in terms of deniability.

And this means the consequences of the Iran war simply aren't relevant.

And if the recent report is true that Israeli jets have been seen operating in Iraqi airspace and landing at US air bases in Iraq, clearly all the denials are entirely spurious.

It's a virtual certainty now that the US and Israel are going to attack Iran. And when that happens, the US will be violently kicked out of Iraq within three months.

It's on, folks, just as I have been saying for months now. Within three to six months, probably three, we will at war with Iran. And that will be the end of the "American Empire" - as well as your jobs, your bank accounts, your mortgages, etc.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 14, 2008 5:15 AM