Jump to content

Obama Tried to Stall GI's Iraq Withdrawal

Out of the Past

Recommended Posts



WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.


According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.


"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.


Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."


"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.


Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.


While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.


Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.


Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.


By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.


Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.


Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.


Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.


According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.


Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.


Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.


Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."


Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."


Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.


Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.


Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, and Obama succeeds in forestalling a withdrawl agreement until after the election, one of two things will happen:


1) (As described in the article above) It will take time for Obama or McCain to build their Administration, then they have to wait for the new Iraqi government to build its Administration before they begin new negotiations, and no troop withdrawls will happen until 2010 at the very earliest, 2011 more likely. Of course, with full troop strength during the Iraqi elections, it's likely phased reduction of troop strength can begin soon if the situation remains stable.


2) If it's Obama, he may plan to rip all our troops out at once, destabilizing the country at a time when it is changing governments again, and tossing Iraq to the wolves, essentially defeating the purpose of the troop surge. While this is the anti-war left's wet dream, to make Iraq the total disaster they want it to be, it will also be counter-intuitive to Obama's goal to restore America's reputation on the global stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that this comes from such a reliable source (The NY Post, the godfather of newspapers turning into tabloids).


An expected response. The problem is that the so-called 'reputable' media doesn't publish this because they're all on Obama d***. And before someone says that I'm just brining the old liberal media argument, look at your favorite newspaper come October and see who they endorse if they have not yet done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how much truth there is to this, but even so, it's certainly possible that he just doesn't trust this administration to do anything correctly. I'm sure the new president, be it McCain or Obama, would prefer to have their stamp on how this is going to work, rather than leave it to Bush and Cheney.


And beyond the silliness in the democratic race where the nominees resorted to "I can have the troops out in 6 months!" "Oh yeah? Well I can have them out in 4 months!" "Oh yeah? Well, I can have them out in...." etc..., there is still the matter of doing it responsibly. Even if Dennis Kucinich was entering the White House, I sincerely doubt he was going to swoop into office and have every single troop on a boat home the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY Post, wow.


Maybe FoxNews will report this soon, and THEN we can take it seriously.

There are direct quotes from Zebari in the article and it appears to me that the quotes were not cut midsentence the way liberals are fond of doing so they are not out of context. Do you think the quotes were fabricated? Anyway, Obama's campaign admitted he asked the Iraqis not to rush through an agreement until after the election. That's similar to Zebari's version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Bush is on his way out. Obama is four more years of the same.


Doesn't sound like you've been an equal opportunity basher. Almost like Obama really got under your skin.

Oh please. There are no opportunities.


Show me one poster on this forum who is the least bit dedicated to supporting John McCain. All I see is some disgruntled conservatives choosing what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils.


Give me an opportunity and I shall do it.


So your opinion, posts and threads revolve around having a grudge with other posters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...