Trying to put the genie back in the bottle
Since Maliki made his pro-Obama statements, following right on the "general time horizon" for withdrawal statement the Iraqis made the administration issue, the Bush administration has been trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
There was the US distributed statement by Maliki's spokesmen, and now we have a more indirect attempt by Joint Chiefs Chair.
Notice the way that last sentence is phrased. Doesn't that make it fairly clear that the Iraqis forced the administration into the "general time horizon" statement?
Maliki's playing them. He knows that it doesn't matter if his spokesman tries to back off the statement. It's already out there, timed to perfection. The damage is already done.
If Maliki seriously wanted to defuse the statement, he would be the one vociferously denying it. (Ben Smith has a great exploration of how Maliki's not really working to knock back the statement. Read it.)
(PS. Maybe someone should ask the question of whether the military, CentCom, or the Pentagon should be involved in knocking down or spinning what is primarily political statement related to the election?)
There was the US distributed statement by Maliki's spokesmen, and now we have a more indirect attempt by Joint Chiefs Chair.
A fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq could jeopardize political and economic progress, the Pentagon's top military officer said Sunday.
Adm. Mike Mullen said the agreement between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more troops home from the war was a sign of "healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy."
Notice the way that last sentence is phrased. Doesn't that make it fairly clear that the Iraqis forced the administration into the "general time horizon" statement?
Maliki's playing them. He knows that it doesn't matter if his spokesman tries to back off the statement. It's already out there, timed to perfection. The damage is already done.
If Maliki seriously wanted to defuse the statement, he would be the one vociferously denying it. (Ben Smith has a great exploration of how Maliki's not really working to knock back the statement. Read it.)
(PS. Maybe someone should ask the question of whether the military, CentCom, or the Pentagon should be involved in knocking down or spinning what is primarily political statement related to the election?)
posted by mikevotes at
11:24 AM
10 Comments:
Doesn't that make it fairly clear that the Iraqis forced the administration into the "general time horizon" statement?
Yes.
Yes, it does.
Nobody is talking about a hard-and-fast 'fixed' timetable, either. As it is, we're just waiting around hoping some oil concessions will materialise and keeping the money to the private contractors flowing. I seriously doubt that if, in 16 months, Iraq has collapsed into chaos that Obama will look at his watch and say "Time's up! We're outta there."
Yet this is exactly how it is being spun.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:47 AM
I find the phrase "burgeoning democracy" to have a whiff of patronization to it.
Everyone know Obama isn't setting an unyielding, drop dead, time line to blindly withdraw combat troops in 16 months. Everyone knows the Bush administration and their corporate sponsors have on interest in Iraq beyond good old fashion Manifest Destiny and oil riches. Everyone knows Bush has no respect for the Iraqi government's sovereignty.
It's all becoming a bit of an unravelling charade. I hope McCain beats this horse hard, because in an open forum -- in a presidential debate -- I'm pretty sure he will be made to look the fool.
By
-epm, at 1:42 PM
To both, I must have given the impression that I thought Obama would hew to a hrad and fast timeline. I don't. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
....
Todd, Yes, the Iraqis got no concrete timeline concession, but they yanked the Bush admin around and showed that they do have some power.
And, no, Obama's not going to willy nilly pull out no matter what he says in the campaign. I always figured there'd be a shift in the "lean" towards less involvement, but as for hard and fast withdrawal, that's not gonna happen.
....
EPM, So far the McCain response has been very poor mostly consisting on namecalling.
By
mikevotes, at 4:15 PM
"A fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq could jeopardize political and economic progress, the Pentagon's top military officer said Sunday."
I was referring to the "top military officer" who rejects a "fixed timetable". This is the same crap that McCain pulls when he talks about Obama's plan - i.e. it's "fixed", meaning we'd be helpless to alter it if Iraq goes pear-shaped.
If we don't make plans to leave, we never will leave. McCain's apparent position is that by planning to leave, we are in effect, leaving - and it's too soon to leave. It's a complete distortion, and the military is taking the same obtuse read.
I apologise for any confusion.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 4:35 PM
No big deal. It was just that you and EPM hit the same point, so I figured I musta said something.
By
mikevotes, at 5:21 PM
They are stuck. In their minds leaving would be handing a victory to the insurgents. Not to mention the huge investment in permanent bases.
By
Anonymous, at 5:30 PM
I too was referring to the parroting know-nothings in the right wing echo chamber -- military spokesmen included -- not anything Mike said. I took it as a matter of fact that Mike understood what Obama and proposing.
By
-epm, at 8:15 PM
And here's the killer question for McCain.
If Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, how can you leave, even if the Iraqis want you to?
By
mikevotes, at 11:04 PM
It's all getting to be a very muddled message for McCain. He says we have already won in Iraq. He says we are still fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He says the gains are fragile. He says the Iraqi government is strong. He says we will leave if the Iraqis ask us to. He says we have to listen to our own military commanders over the Iraqis.
For such an "experienced" and "straight talking" guy, it sure sounds as if he doesn't have a bloody clue as to his own message on Iraq. If anything his message condenses to "we have to stay in Iraq until I say it's time to withdraw, because I was a POW and I understand war". Not very compelling, IMHO.
It's quite similar to Bush's "Decider" justification, and it's clear how well that's worked for him.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:29 PM
I think your summation of his position is pretty right on.
McCain has boxed himself in in the way he's dealt with Iraq, and now he's stuck himself where he is.
Kinda makes you wonder where a McCain presidency would put us, eh?
By
mikevotes, at 5:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home