Mr. O’s road trip

July 21st, 2008

There’s been a flurry of interesting reports coming from Obama’s trip to the Middle-East … and so far, at least, the warnings of political “risk” to him have proven much ado about nothing — he’s the energizer bunny, that one. Of course, ANYONE bringing a fresh outlook and cooperative style to that area would be welcomed. I mean, seriously … if you think WE’VE got ‘Bush fatigue” … !!!

The weekend held some high points, chronicled below — and the last link and article are reflective of the shift going on; it’s time for ‘new.’ ‘Old’ [or Johnny Mac] is just grumpy about all of it — and Dubby refuses to even say Obama’s name, while the White House is scrambling to compensate for that little key-pressing Oopsie from the press, indicating Maliki’s enthusiasm for Mr. O’s plan. The ONLY area where McCain enjoys higher numbers than Obama is on national security … it’s going to be harder to hold those now that the public will consider Obama ‘informed.’

Meanwhile, in a massive ’short-timer’ flip-flop, the White House has agreed to set a “general time horizon” for troops to come home, they’re talking with Iran and Petraeus has turned his attention toward Afghanistan; the energy is breaking Left. And not everyone is happy about it, as indicated by this Tom Toles ‘toon.

The last link and article are overviews. At minimum, given Obama’s performance — this puts to bed the notion that he’s “not presidential.” And since nobody even thinks of Georgie as president any more, all eyes turn to Barack.

Looks like a blue, blue Christmas, kids!!

Jude

White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan
Jake Tapper, ABC News
July 19, 2008

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined “Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine.”

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that “he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘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,’” the prime minister said.

The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama’s campaign alleges the president is moving closer toward Obama’s recommendations about international relations — sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a “general time horizon” for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran. ++

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
Tom Hayden, HuffPo
July 19, 2008

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq’s prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate’s 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a “horizon” for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki’s surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama’s plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki’s comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the “Philippine option” predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.

While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama’s imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy “primary.”

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion — Shi’a and Sunni — strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki’s coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi’a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi’a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi’a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq’s oilfields after thirty years of absence.

The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of “mission accomplished”, perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi’a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi’a party. In the region’s geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi’a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran’s nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge “if” hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki’s statement, delivered as Obama’s visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems… As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned… Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic… Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. 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. ++

McCain adviser on Iraqi PM’s Obama endorsement: ‘We’re f**ked’
RAW STORY
Saturday July 19, 2008

Senator John McCain ridiculed Senator Obama’s timetable for Iraq withdrawal as a tactic aimed only at getting votes.

For the Iraqi Prime minister, it apparently worked.

The clear endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Saturday morning came as a strong blow to the McCain campaign.

McCain has claimed a superiority to Obama in matters of foreign policy as a major selling point to his candidacy for president, but that position is more difficult in the wake of al-Maliki’s statement.

After hearing of the announcement, a sometime adviser to the McCain campaign said in an email, “We’re f**ked,” according to Mark Ambinder of The Atlantic.

A senior McCain campaign official responded to Ambinder about the development.

“His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out,” he said 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.”

But it will be difficult for McCain to deny his own statement in 2004 that the United States would have to leave Iraq if the nation’s leaders requested it.

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq — and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

McCain’s criticism of Obama as less able in matters of foreign policy has increased during the week leading up to Obama’s trip overseas which began this weekend and will continue into next week.

“This success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed,” McCain said to Reuters Thursday. “And if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed,” and leave behind chaos and Iranian influence, he said.

A ad released by the McCain campaign Friday sharply criticized Obama of shifting positions on Iraq “to help himself become president.”

An MSNBC story discusses McCain’s attacks on Obama leading up to his trip to Afghanistan and other Middle East countries. [Open link for video] ++

Iraq PM retracts support for Obama, but damage done
RAW STORY
Sunday July 20, 2008

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki hasn’t endorsed any candidate or their plan for troop withdrawals, a government spokesman said a day after a magazine quoted Maliki as supporting Barack Obama’s withdrawal timeline, Bloomberg reported.

Although al-Maliki supports a “general vision” of American troop withdrawal from his country, the prime minister has not backed Obama’s plan for a 16-month timeline, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The official said German magazine Spiegel had “misunderstood and mistranslated” al-Maliki when it quoted the prime minister as supporting Obama’s plan, but the magazine questioned why the spokesman did not point out what exactly had been misunderstood or mistranslated and called the prime minister’s retraction “half-hearted.”

According to Spiegel, al-Maliki said of Obama’s plan, “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes.”

The prime minister never made an outright endorsement of the candidate himself in the article, saying “who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business.”

“But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”

The prime minister may wish to retract his statements supporting Obama, but for many, especially the McCain campaign, the damage has been done.

“There’s just no way that all three of these passages were mistranslated,” Kevin Drum wrote in the The Washington Monthly. “There’s really no way to spin that away.”

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein shared the opinion that the McCain campaign would be hard pressed to overturn the major win Maliki’s support, however short-lived, has given Senator Obama.

“In the U.S., this is all bad news for the McCain campaign. Yes, McCain was right about the Surge, but that is a small, tactical truth too complicated to be understood by most Americans. Maliki Endorses Obama Withdrawal Plan is a headline everyone can understand.” ++

Obama Would Be a `Strong’ Partner, Karzai Aide Says
Bill Varner and Matthew Benjamin, Bloomberg
July 20

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai came away from a meeting today with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama expecting he would have a “strong partner'’ in the White House no matter who wins the U.S. election, his spokesman said.

Obama and U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed spent an hour and 45 minutes with Karzai and his top aides in the presidential palace in Kabul, including a lunch of Afghan rice, lamb and chicken, spokesman Humayun Hamidzada told reporters.

The Illinois senator, 46, is on a six-day tour that also will include stops in Iraq, Israel and Western Europe. Obama said in a CBS News interview in Afghanistan that that nation “has to be our central focus, the central front of our battle against terrorism.'’

“Losing is not an option when it comes to Afghanistan,'’ Obama said in the interview. “One of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here,'’ he said, referring to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, which harbored the al-Qaeda terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hamidzada reported a “very friendly environment'’ between the U.S. senators and Karzai that didn’t include substantive discussion of Obama’s plan to send 7,000 additional U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan or his criticism of Karzai’s failure to reduce corruption in the nation’s government.

`Degree of Realism’

“We didn’t see that as a criticism,'’ Hamidzada said. “There is a degree of realism in that statement. While we are making progress, we are facing a significant threat of terrorism, which requires spending a lot of our resources to fight.'’

Hamidzada said the two men didn’t discuss Karzai’s concerns about civilian deaths caused by U.S. and allied forces. He said an air strike by coalition forces that killed nine Afghan policemen in western Farah province today was mistakenly ordered by Afghanistan’s army.

Obama spent the night at Bagram Air Force Base outside Kabul after arriving in Afghanistan yesterday. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, have accompanied Obama on this part of his trip, along with Mark Lippert, one of his chief foreign policy advisers.

Meals With Soldiers

They received briefings from U.S. commanders at Bagram and visited troops at Jalalabad Air Base yesterday. The senators stopped today in Kabul at U.S. Camp Eggars, where they had breakfast with soldiers.

“They sat with the soldiers, shared stories with the soldiers about what is going on in Afghanistan,'’ Lieutenant Colonel David Johnson, a spokesman for the camp, said.

In a statement today, the senators said the Taliban and al- Qaeda have “regrouped and they are getting stronger, as we saw yesterday with attacks throughout Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of a NATO soldier and several members of the Afghan police.'’

The meeting with Karzai came as many Afghans echo the call for “change'’ in their leadership that has been a theme of Obama’s campaign, according to Paul Fishstein, director of the Kabul-based Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, which tracks the nation’s development. Karzai, 50, who was elected in 2002, faces a difficult re-election campaign next year, he said.

`Hunger for Change’

“People are quite angry right now, and it is directed at the Karzai government,'’ Fishstein said. “They are looking for strong leadership, someone to step up against corruption.'’

Obama has previously said there are “a lot of problems'’ with Karzai’s administration and that the government is failing to organize the country, judiciary and police.

Hamidzada, in an interview last week, defended Karzai’s efforts to unite the country following the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.

“The president is a very strong leader,'’ Hamidzada said. “He has united the country, produced results, and now we are in the consolidation stage.'’

The journey was Obama’s first to Afghanistan. Since 2001, al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have established themselves in rugged mountains along the Pakistani-Afghan border, using that sanctuary as a base for attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces.

Obama said Pakistan must become more aggressive in destroying the terrorist bases within its borders.

Pushing Pakistan

“I will push Pakistan very hard to go after those training camps,'’ the Illinois senator said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, interviewed on CNN’s “Late Edition'’ program, agreed that the government of Pakistan needs to deal with terrorists in tribal areas that border Afghanistan.

“It’s very clear that more has to be done to stabilize that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan,'’ she said.

Obama, who stopped in Kuwait on the way to Afghanistan to see U.S. soldiers, is also scheduled to go to Baghdad, Amman, Israel and the West Bank, Berlin, Paris and London.

Obama’s tour of the war zone is part of a six-day overseas trip aimed at shedding an image of a foreign-policy neophyte that constitutes one of his greatest weaknesses as a candidate, according to a recent ABC-Washington Post poll.

The survey found that voters, by more than a 2 to 1 margin, said presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, 71, has a greater knowledge of the world than Obama. The poll, taken July 10 through July 13, found that 72 percent of those surveyed said McCain knows enough about world affairs to be president, while 56 percent said so about Obama.

Strain on Military

Obama contends that the war in Iraq has strained the U.S. military and diverted resources from Afghanistan. He promises to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office and calls for sending two additional brigades of about 3,500 soldiers each to Afghanistan.

McCain, of Arizona, has called for sending at least three more brigades to Afghanistan. He opposes Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan and rejects his contention that a continued American military presence there detracts from the effort in Afghanistan.

The U.S. has more than 19,000 soldiers under NATO command in Afghanistan and another 16,000 in a separate counterterrorism force in the eastern part of the country. ++

Obama in Afghanistan
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
7/20/08

Obama in Iraq;
Der Spiegel Proves al-Maliki Story Correct;
Series of Bombings hit Baghdad
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Monday, July 21, 2008

Senator Barack Obama is in Iraq for consultations with American military commanders and Iraqi leaders.

Despite all the talk about Iraq being “calm,” I’d like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year’s troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren’t for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn’t be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.

The troop escalation, which actually allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the country, has largely been pushed as propaganda by the White House and the AEI. Here’s an example of how their propaganda works. As is usual with news it does not like, the Bush administration attempted to muddy the waters this weekend regarding the interview of PM Nuri al-Maliki with Der Spiegel in which he expressed approval of Barack Obama’s plan to get US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of next January. Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel in response to a question about how long US troops would be in his country,

‘Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. 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.

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. ‘

Ali al-Dabbagh, who is usually described as al-Maliki’s spokesman but actually seems to work for the CENTCOM or Pentagon Middle East command, was trotted out to make vague statements about Der Spiegel’s having mistranslated or misinterpreted what al-Maliki said. This denial was issued through CENTCOM! When the original demand came from al-Maliki for a timetable for US withdrawal, it was al-Dabbagh who reinterpreted it as a ‘time horizon.’ Al-Dabbagh was contradicted by National Security Counsellor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, who seems actually closer in this thinking to al-Maliki. My guess is that al-Dabbagh has been recruited by some agency in Washington, DC, to explain away al-Maliki’s statements whenever they contradict Bush’s.

Der Spiegel stood by its story. The text of Der Spiegel’s statement is here. It turns out that the translator involved works for al-Maliki, not for Der Spiegel, and so presumably knew what the prime minister’s words meant in Arabic. And for the piece de resistance, it turns out that Der Spiegel has an audiotape of the Arabic of the interview, which they leaked to The New York Times. Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Zeleny write:

‘ But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. . . The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.” He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.” ‘

But you see, it does not matter that al-Maliki actually said what he said. It does not matter that Der Spiegel can prove it. All that matters is that the Goebbelses around Bush and Cheney have managed to muddy the waters and produce doubt, taking the hard edge off the interview. Even AFP, the usually skeptical French wire service, asserted that al-Maliki had “denied” the accuracy of the Der Spiegel interview! Of course, al-Maliki has done no such thing. CENTCOM ventriloquising al-Dabbagh engaged in the denial, and a very vague one at that.

That is the way propaganda works, to obscure the truth and ensure it can be denied. Some wingnut even tried to pressure me to retract the little sentence I had written on the affair yesterday, on the grounds of “al-Dabbagh’s” mendacious and ridiculous assertions. Our information system is so corrupt and easily manipulated that even a clumsy ploy can obscure the truth and bully the journalists.

Aljazeera International reports on the conflict between Obama and McCain on a timetable for US troop withdrawals from Iraq.

[open link for youtube]

Over the weekend, the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front rejoined the al-Maliki government. It had left last summer over accusations that al-Maliki ignored Sunni sensitivities, refused to speak to his vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, coddled Shiite militias that ethnically cleansed Sunnis, and kept tens of thousands of Sunnis in prison without charges or due process. As Xinhua notes, al-Hashimi’s Iraqi Islamic Party, one of three components of the Iraqi Accord Front coalition of Sunni parties, will face great competition in the provincial elections from the US-created Awakening Councils, which are paid and armed by the US military.

Speaking of this fall’s provincial elections, the country’s elections commission announced Sunday that they might have to be postponed, given that Parliament has still not passed the enabling legislation. The election law is mired in debates over the mixed province of Kirkuk in the north, and whether it should hold provincial elections along with the other provinces. The province is claimed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, which wants to annex it, even though the Turkmen and Arab populations do not want to join semi-autonomous Kurdistan (where the state schools are no longer Arabophone).

Al-Zaman writing in Arabic says that the new date has been set as December 22. It is official: The provincial elections in Iraq will not occur in time to affect the US presidential race. E.g., if the Sadrists sweep to power in many Shiite provinces, that could have been a factor in the US polls. Not going to happen.

A new airport, funded in important part by Iran has opened at the Shiite holy city of Najaf. It will likely bring millions of pilgrims from Iran, Pakistan, India and elsewhere to the shrine of Imam Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad. American authorities worried about Iranians in Iraq may as well just lay back; with millions going in and out, tracking them is going to be rather difficult.

Catch Tomdispatch.com on professional warfighters and on the Pentagon’s fuel consumption.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Sunday:

‘ Baghdad

An adhesive IED stuck to a civilian car detonated in Kem neighbourhood, Adhamiyah, northern Baghdad early Sunday killing the driver.

A roadside bomb exploded in Karrada, near al-Rahibat Hospital at 7.30 a.m. killing one civilian, injuring three.

A roadside bomb targeted a U.S. military convoy on Qanat Street in the direction of Qahira, northeast Baghdad at around 10.30 a.m. Sunday. No casualties were reported.

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Qahira, near al-Nidaa Mosque at noon injuring five people including two policemen.

A parked car bomb detonated in Damascus intersection, central Baghdad at 6 p.m. killing one civilian, injuring seven people including one policemen and one baby girl.

Three unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today by Iraqi Police; one in Amil, one in Baladiyat and one in Hurriyah.

Gunmen threw a hand grenade at a car selling alcoholic beverages, parked on the Jadriyah Bridge at 9 p.m. injuring four civilians.

A roadside bomb exploded in al-Jaara in Madain, to the south east of Baghdad injuring three civilians including a little girl.

Diyala

A roadside bomb targeted a pick up truck in Wajihiyah district, 20 km to the east of Baquba at 6.45 p.m. killing two policemen in plain clothes.

Nineveh

A suicide car bomb targeted a site where trucks carrying construction materials for the U.S military stop at 4 p.m. killing two foreign private security contractors.

Gunmen in a speeding car open fire upon a group of civilians in al-Hadbaa neighbourhood, Mosul city at 6 p.m. killing three.

Gunmen in a speeding car open fire upon a civilian in Aden neighbourhood at 7.30 p.m. killing him on his doorstep.

One policeman killed by sniper fire in al-Masarif neighbourhood, Mosul city at around 7.30 p.m.

Anbar

Iraqi Army servicemen captured a suicide bomber targeting a checkpoint in central Ramadi. The suicide vest was defused and the suicide bomber detained.

Salahuddin

An American Special Force raided the residence of Khalaf Issa Turk in al-Asri neighbourhood, Baiji at dawn, Sunday and opened fire upon Husam Hamed Hmoud al-Qaissi, son of the Governor of Salahuddin Province while he was asleep in the guest room and also opened fire upon Auday Khalaf Issa al-Qaissi, his cousin killing them both, and detained two others without giving any explanation, said a security source in Salahuddin Province. The American military said its forces shot two armed men during a raid because they felt they had “hostile intent”. The statement added that the forces also injured and captured an al-Qaida financer during the operation.

Kirkuk

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Tayaran Square, central Kirkuk Sunday morning, injuring one policeman.

Basra

Basra Police found the body of a 24 year old female in Jazair neighbourhood, central Basra Sunday. She was shot four times. ++

Obama, Afghanistan, Politics and Promises
P.M. Carpenter
Mon, 07/21/2008

Worldview: An Obama impact on Bush’s positions?
Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer

To an amazing extent, Bush foreign policy seems to be turning toward the positions of Barack Obama.

On Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and other issues, the administration was shifting gears just as the Illinois senator left embarked on his overseas voyage. Some of these changes were forced on the White House by events. Some reflect late recognition that policies were not working.

These shifts may well boost Obama when he argues that his approach to foreign policy is best. Such arguments will only work, however, if he refrains from hubris. His foreign-policy speeches reveal a man still on a learning curve.

Let’s hope he listens and learns on his whirlwind trip.

Recent policy shifts at the White House have been quite stunning. On Friday, after talks between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the White House announced that the United States and Iraq will seek a “general time horizon” for deeper troop reductions. This was a Maliki demand that the White House had not anticipated or sought.

Bush officials insisted this was not an “arbitrary date for withdrawal,” like the 16-month deadline Obama has promised for a U.S. troop exit. Yet Maliki has changed the tone of the U.S. political debate during the campaign season. It is now harder for Bush or John McCain to denounce Obama for talking of timelines.

Moreover, just in time for Obama’s arrival, Maliki dropped a bombshell. In an interview with Der Spiegel that appeared yesterday, he said a U.S. withdrawal should come “as soon as possible.” He then said Obama’s timeline of “about 16 months” would “be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

The Iraqi prime minister has an eye on coming Iraqi elections. His party is tiny, but his nationalist stance will resonate with many Iraqis who are fed up with occupation, even though they may fear their army cannot yet provide security without U.S. military aid. Kurds and Sunnis in particular are nervous. Two to three years would be a better target for U.S. troop withdrawal.

Obama’s Iraq speech on Tuesday underestimated the slow, but real, progress toward new political parties and alliances. Any timeline should be gauged to solidify this progress.

And his big idea - to promote regional diplomacy that would help stabilize Iraq - would be undercut by rigid insistence on a withdrawal date. Here Iran is key. If the Americans were already on their way out, Tehran would have no incentive to agree on a regional pact; Iraqi leaders would feel more obliged to do Iran’s bidding.

In Obama’s favor, Iraqis seem set to help the next president achieve a dramatic pullout in his first term. If he seeks a stable end to the war, he should listen closely to Iraqi leaders (not just Maliki) and U.S. commanders. A rigid timeline could undercut his goals.

U.S. policy is also trending Obama’s way on Afghanistan. He has called for a shift in focus and troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to fight against al-Qaeda on the Afghan-Pakistani border. McCain has insisted that the central front in the antiterrorism fight is Iraq.

But al-Qaeda and the Taliban have regrouped in Pakistan’s tribal areas, from which jihadis are now attacking Afghanistan. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, has practically been begging for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Last week, McCain finally called for sending three more U.S. brigades to that country. This month, Bush also promised to send more troops by year’s end.

Then there is Iran, where U.S. policy also took a sharp turn last week, again in Obama’s direction. He has called for direct U.S.-Iranian talks without preconditions.

In a stunning about-face, the White House sent a top U.S. official, William Burns, to join this weekend’s multilateral talks with Iran on its nuclear policy. This reverses years of refusal to meet face to face with Iran on nuclear talks before Tehran suspended its enrichment of uranium.

Condoleezza Rice has said Burns’ appearance is a one-shot deal and does not signify a shift. European officials who are also taking part in the talks beg to differ. One told reporters it was a “major change.”

No doubt the Europeans recalled the shift this year in U.S. policy toward North Korea. After years of refusing, the White House finally permitted a U.S. envoy to talk directly to North Korean officials on the sidelines of multilateral talks. An agreement was then reached.

Iran is a much harder nut to crack. But permitting Burns to attend talks is an apparent signal to Tehran that the United States prefers diplomacy to bombs at a time when rumors of possible U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities are rife. To her credit, Rice appears to recognize that diplomacy-cum-sanctions is the better option; unfortunately, Washington is getting serious much too late.

Chances are that Tehran will hold back on any significant concessions until a new president is elected. (The Iranians played that game with Jimmy Carter, returning U.S. diplomat hostages only after Ronald Reagan took office.)

In other words, Obama - should he win - could luck out on Iran, too. Mercifully, he is backing off his rash pledge to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If U.S.-Iranian diplomacy progresses, it will require a long, hard slog by midlevel officials before high-level diplomacy makes sense.

Foreign-policy events are trending Obama’s way if he is flexible enough to take full advantage. Beyond the crowds and the rallies abroad, let’s hope Obama’s voyage is a learning experience. And one carried out with an open mind. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves

Mr. O’s road trip

July 21st, 2008

There’s been a flurry of interesting reports coming from Obama’s trip to the Middle-East … and so far, at least, the warnings of political “risk” to him have proven much ado about nothing — he’s the energizer bunny, that one. Of course, ANYONE bringing a fresh outlook and cooperative style to that area would be welcomed. I mean, seriously … if you think WE’VE got ‘Bush fatigue” … !!!

The weekend held some high points, chronicled below — and the last link and article are reflective of the shift going on; it’s time for ‘new.’ ‘Old’ [or Johnny Mac] is just grumpy about all of it — and Dubby refuses to even say Obama’s name, while the White House is scrambling to compensate for that little key-pressing Oopsie from the press, indicating Maliki’s enthusiasm for Mr. O’s plan. The ONLY area where McCain enjoys higher numbers than Obama is on national security … it’s going to be harder to hold those now that the public will consider Obama ‘informed.’

Meanwhile, in a massive ’short-timer’ flip-flop, the White House has agreed to set a “general time horizon” for troops to come home, they’re talking with Iran and Petraeus has turned his attention toward Afghanistan; the energy is breaking Left. And not everyone is happy about it, as indicated by this Tom Toles ‘toon.

The last link and article are overviews. At minimum, given Obama’s performance — this puts to bed the notion that he’s “not presidential.” And since nobody even thinks of Georgie as president any more, all eyes turn to Barack.

Looks like a blue, blue Christmas, kids!!

Jude

White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan
Jake Tapper, ABC News
July 19, 2008

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined “Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine.”

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that “he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘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,’” the prime minister said.

The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama’s campaign alleges the president is moving closer toward Obama’s recommendations about international relations — sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a “general time horizon” for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran. ++

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
Tom Hayden, HuffPo
July 19, 2008

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq’s prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate’s 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a “horizon” for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki’s surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama’s plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki’s comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the “Philippine option” predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.

While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama’s imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy “primary.”

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion — Shi’a and Sunni — strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki’s coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi’a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi’a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi’a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq’s oilfields after thirty years of absence.

The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of “mission accomplished”, perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi’a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi’a party. In the region’s geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi’a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran’s nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge “if” hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki’s statement, delivered as Obama’s visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems… As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned… Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic… Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. 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. ++

McCain adviser on Iraqi PM’s Obama endorsement: ‘We’re f**ked’
RAW STORY
Saturday July 19, 2008

Senator John McCain ridiculed Senator Obama’s timetable for Iraq withdrawal as a tactic aimed only at getting votes.

For the Iraqi Prime minister, it apparently worked.

The clear endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Saturday morning came as a strong blow to the McCain campaign.

McCain has claimed a superiority to Obama in matters of foreign policy as a major selling point to his candidacy for president, but that position is more difficult in the wake of al-Maliki’s statement.

After hearing of the announcement, a sometime adviser to the McCain campaign said in an email, “We’re f**ked,” according to Mark Ambinder of The Atlantic.

A senior McCain campaign official responded to Ambinder about the development.

“His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out,” he said 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.”

But it will be difficult for McCain to deny his own statement in 2004 that the United States would have to leave Iraq if the nation’s leaders requested it.

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq — and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

McCain’s criticism of Obama as less able in matters of foreign policy has increased during the week leading up to Obama’s trip overseas which began this weekend and will continue into next week.

“This success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed,” McCain said to Reuters Thursday. “And if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed,” and leave behind chaos and Iranian influence, he said.

A ad released by the McCain campaign Friday sharply criticized Obama of shifting positions on Iraq “to help himself become president.”

An MSNBC story discusses McCain’s attacks on Obama leading up to his trip to Afghanistan and other Middle East countries. [Open link for video] ++

Iraq PM retracts support for Obama, but damage done
RAW STORY
Sunday July 20, 2008

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki hasn’t endorsed any candidate or their plan for troop withdrawals, a government spokesman said a day after a magazine quoted Maliki as supporting Barack Obama’s withdrawal timeline, Bloomberg reported.

Although al-Maliki supports a “general vision” of American troop withdrawal from his country, the prime minister has not backed Obama’s plan for a 16-month timeline, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The official said German magazine Spiegel had “misunderstood and mistranslated” al-Maliki when it quoted the prime minister as supporting Obama’s plan, but the magazine questioned why the spokesman did not point out what exactly had been misunderstood or mistranslated and called the prime minister’s retraction “half-hearted.”

According to Spiegel, al-Maliki said of Obama’s plan, “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes.”

The prime minister never made an outright endorsement of the candidate himself in the article, saying “who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business.”

“But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”

The prime minister may wish to retract his statements supporting Obama, but for many, especially the McCain campaign, the damage has been done.

“There’s just no way that all three of these passages were mistranslated,” Kevin Drum wrote in the The Washington Monthly. “There’s really no way to spin that away.”

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein shared the opinion that the McCain campaign would be hard pressed to overturn the major win Maliki’s support, however short-lived, has given Senator Obama.

“In the U.S., this is all bad news for the McCain campaign. Yes, McCain was right about the Surge, but that is a small, tactical truth too complicated to be understood by most Americans. Maliki Endorses Obama Withdrawal Plan is a headline everyone can understand.” ++

Obama Would Be a `Strong’ Partner, Karzai Aide Says
Bill Varner and Matthew Benjamin, Bloomberg
July 20

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai came away from a meeting today with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama expecting he would have a “strong partner'’ in the White House no matter who wins the U.S. election, his spokesman said.

Obama and U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed spent an hour and 45 minutes with Karzai and his top aides in the presidential palace in Kabul, including a lunch of Afghan rice, lamb and chicken, spokesman Humayun Hamidzada told reporters.

The Illinois senator, 46, is on a six-day tour that also will include stops in Iraq, Israel and Western Europe. Obama said in a CBS News interview in Afghanistan that that nation “has to be our central focus, the central front of our battle against terrorism.'’

“Losing is not an option when it comes to Afghanistan,'’ Obama said in the interview. “One of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here,'’ he said, referring to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, which harbored the al-Qaeda terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hamidzada reported a “very friendly environment'’ between the U.S. senators and Karzai that didn’t include substantive discussion of Obama’s plan to send 7,000 additional U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan or his criticism of Karzai’s failure to reduce corruption in the nation’s government.

`Degree of Realism’

“We didn’t see that as a criticism,'’ Hamidzada said. “There is a degree of realism in that statement. While we are making progress, we are facing a significant threat of terrorism, which requires spending a lot of our resources to fight.'’

Hamidzada said the two men didn’t discuss Karzai’s concerns about civilian deaths caused by U.S. and allied forces. He said an air strike by coalition forces that killed nine Afghan policemen in western Farah province today was mistakenly ordered by Afghanistan’s army.

Obama spent the night at Bagram Air Force Base outside Kabul after arriving in Afghanistan yesterday. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, have accompanied Obama on this part of his trip, along with Mark Lippert, one of his chief foreign policy advisers.

Meals With Soldiers

They received briefings from U.S. commanders at Bagram and visited troops at Jalalabad Air Base yesterday. The senators stopped today in Kabul at U.S. Camp Eggars, where they had breakfast with soldiers.

“They sat with the soldiers, shared stories with the soldiers about what is going on in Afghanistan,'’ Lieutenant Colonel David Johnson, a spokesman for the camp, said.

In a statement today, the senators said the Taliban and al- Qaeda have “regrouped and they are getting stronger, as we saw yesterday with attacks throughout Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of a NATO soldier and several members of the Afghan police.'’

The meeting with Karzai came as many Afghans echo the call for “change'’ in their leadership that has been a theme of Obama’s campaign, according to Paul Fishstein, director of the Kabul-based Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, which tracks the nation’s development. Karzai, 50, who was elected in 2002, faces a difficult re-election campaign next year, he said.

`Hunger for Change’

“People are quite angry right now, and it is directed at the Karzai government,'’ Fishstein said. “They are looking for strong leadership, someone to step up against corruption.'’

Obama has previously said there are “a lot of problems'’ with Karzai’s administration and that the government is failing to organize the country, judiciary and police.

Hamidzada, in an interview last week, defended Karzai’s efforts to unite the country following the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.

“The president is a very strong leader,'’ Hamidzada said. “He has united the country, produced results, and now we are in the consolidation stage.'’

The journey was Obama’s first to Afghanistan. Since 2001, al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have established themselves in rugged mountains along the Pakistani-Afghan border, using that sanctuary as a base for attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces.

Obama said Pakistan must become more aggressive in destroying the terrorist bases within its borders.

Pushing Pakistan

“I will push Pakistan very hard to go after those training camps,'’ the Illinois senator said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, interviewed on CNN’s “Late Edition'’ program, agreed that the government of Pakistan needs to deal with terrorists in tribal areas that border Afghanistan.

“It’s very clear that more has to be done to stabilize that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan,'’ she said.

Obama, who stopped in Kuwait on the way to Afghanistan to see U.S. soldiers, is also scheduled to go to Baghdad, Amman, Israel and the West Bank, Berlin, Paris and London.

Obama’s tour of the war zone is part of a six-day overseas trip aimed at shedding an image of a foreign-policy neophyte that constitutes one of his greatest weaknesses as a candidate, according to a recent ABC-Washington Post poll.

The survey found that voters, by more than a 2 to 1 margin, said presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, 71, has a greater knowledge of the world than Obama. The poll, taken July 10 through July 13, found that 72 percent of those surveyed said McCain knows enough about world affairs to be president, while 56 percent said so about Obama.

Strain on Military

Obama contends that the war in Iraq has strained the U.S. military and diverted resources from Afghanistan. He promises to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office and calls for sending two additional brigades of about 3,500 soldiers each to Afghanistan.

McCain, of Arizona, has called for sending at least three more brigades to Afghanistan. He opposes Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan and rejects his contention that a continued American military presence there detracts from the effort in Afghanistan.

The U.S. has more than 19,000 soldiers under NATO command in Afghanistan and another 16,000 in a separate counterterrorism force in the eastern part of the country. ++

Obama in Afghanistan
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
7/20/08

Obama in Iraq;
Der Spiegel Proves al-Maliki Story Correct;
Series of Bombings hit Baghdad
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Monday, July 21, 2008

Senator Barack Obama is in Iraq for consultations with American military commanders and Iraqi leaders.

Despite all the talk about Iraq being “calm,” I’d like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year’s troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren’t for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn’t be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.

The troop escalation, which actually allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the country, has largely been pushed as propaganda by the White House and the AEI. Here’s an example of how their propaganda works. As is usual with news it does not like, the Bush administration attempted to muddy the waters this weekend regarding the interview of PM Nuri al-Maliki with Der Spiegel in which he expressed approval of Barack Obama’s plan to get US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of next January. Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel in response to a question about how long US troops would be in his country,

‘Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. 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.