Victory's 1001st Father

You have to "admire" Barack Obama's ability (audacity) to get out in front of a passing parade and become its leader, while MSM entities like Reuters are content to carry on with the months-long process of anointing him.

As he begins his international campaign tour--touching down in Afghanistan today--Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorses Obama's post-inaugural plan for Iraq.

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"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."

One assumes that the prime minister thinks that the Iraqi Army is ready to keep a steady foot on the necks of domestic extremists and the veracity of this summation is backed up by many other observers. And even if the army is not ready, if the acknowledged government of the country says to go, we have to go.

Regarding Obama, however, this is the issue: if the Iraqi Army is ready to 'stand up' then that state of affairs was made possible by the US Armed Forces troop surge which John McCain helped formulate, which George W. Bush implemented and which Barack Obama vehemently opposed.

So he was wrong. Fine, we are all wrong sometimes, but could he at least say that he was wrong instead of pretending as though he always believed that the surge was going to work?

(Thanks to Memeorandum)

Comments

[Wry Mouth]

It was only a matter of time before people jostling for power would start to position themselves as designers of "timetables for withdrawal" that would be believable -- built upon the hard work of the troops and This Administration, for all its other faults.

No references to the shoulders of anyone upon whom they themselves might be standing. No references to the Admin's position of letting the Iraqi government and armed forces take control in a measured fashion.

No mention that NO ONE *wants* to be in Iraq for a hundred years, or ever has wanted to be in Iraq for a hundred years.

I wonder at times whether it would be possible for me to live the rest of my life happily with an icepick driven through my frontal lobe to ease the pain.

[notropis]

Wry Mouth, I agree with you, and I find it interesting that the one person who should be bothered by this (GW Bush), isn't. While Bill Clinton screams bloody murder whenever anyone dares try to besmirch his beloved legacy, Bush will retire quietly to Crawford, feeling very happy indeed if Iraq continues to improve and our forces can come home, regardless of who gets or claims the credit, and himself only ever crediting our Armed Forces.

It's one of the reasons he's failed the propaganda game so badly -- he genuinely (and wrongly, politically speaking) sees no need for it.

[IronMike]

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
And may Peace and Blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad

Dear Senator Obama and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,

Thank you for giving us a timeline. It is nice to know that our tactics are working.

16 months is not sufficient though. We want the Americans out sooner, so we will increase the frequency of our attacks and continue to kill the infidels wherever we find them. Perhpas we can get your timeline down to 10 months? 8 months? 6 months, God be praised?

Sincerely,
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Posted by Al Sahab

[baldilocks]

Mikey, dude, you were skerrin me. I thought you had converted.

Seriously, I think that the fact that Maliki appears to have left some wiggle room with the timeline has been downplayed.

[Eric Chen]

I don't have a problem with the 16 month timetable for drawing down US troops in Iraq proposed by Barack Obama. It's reasonable and probably necessary for drawing down US forces in Iraq. I'm a big fan of COIN and our recent success in Iraq has validated my belief in it. Even so, when the 'surge' began, my expectation was that succeed or fail, the troop increase had to end by 2010. Well, January 2009 plus 16 months equals May 2010.

On the other hand, as someone who was on driver-escort detail in Seoul during the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War commemoration, the idea of a long-term stay for our military in Iraq as guarantor doesn't bother me much, as long as our presence transforms into the kind McCain meant when he made his "100 years" statement.

The key is how the drawdown is done and to what purpose. Obama is holding out the carrot to his anti-war fans that the drawdown over 16 months will be total and absolute, regardless of conditions. I disagree with that. I hope, instead, the inevitable drawdown will be thoughful and in pace with conditions, with the possibility that it could be a total withdrawal - under the right conditions.

Over Obama's proposed 16 months, I believe President McCain would accept loosening American control and drawing down US forces in Iraq in a measured fashion, but like a concerned parent with a teen arguing for more freedom, he'd be reluctant to remove our protection altogether. It's hard to say with any certainty which way President Obama would go.

[IronMike]

Baldi,

You seen this? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/white-house-acc.html

M

[baldilocks]

Mike,

Yes, I don't think it was an accident. Then again.