One indication that Iraq may actually be evolving into a democracy is that its Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seems to be emerging as a genuine “pol” of the type we are used to in the West. His interview with Der Spiegel is right out of the conventional politician playbook, right up to the non-denial denial about taking sides in the US election. This too sounds like a “talking point” from one of our Sunday morning “Sabbath gasbags”: “The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn’t.” Ah… democracy. What did Churchill say about it?
Roger,
When you get back, could you fix/reenable/point out where your RSS feed link is? Thanks!
Churchill’s riff on democracy was that the best argument against it is “five minutes with the average voter.” The thing is, Maliki is not the average voter…
This is what Maliki said:
Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
****
Now that is not a strong endorsement of timetables, he is just saying that Obama’s time frame is not far off what they would like. Well, 16 months from Jan 2009 is April 2010.
A couple of days ago, Bush and Maliki agreed to another kind of timetable, based on events rather than concrete dates. I think they called it a “times horizon” schedule or something like that. Joe Biden responded by saying Bush had shifted his position. Of course he had not, and of course Obama has. Obama was calling for the same timeline before the surge. Maliki was definitely supportive of that.
One thing about it, in this article Maliki states that the war has done far more good for Iraq than harm.
I should have said Maliki was definitely NOT supportive of a timeline for withdrawal before the surge. Got ahead of myself there.
Actually I meant: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” But Churchill said a lot of things (this one in front of Parliament in 1947).
CNN headline says Iraqi Prime Minister reportedly backs Obama plan.
It’s going to be a cute election season.
Obama 1 McCain NIL
Barry:
It is Saturday, who cares? But really, what a position to be in. Maliki knows that Obama might be the next President. He can not just tell him to go to hell or call him an idiot or whatever. He might have to deal with him. At the same time he can not come out and tell the Iraqi people that he can not provide security for them and so the Americans must stay until whenever. He is stuck in our election.
This is tricky here. First, Maliki said this in reference to withdrawal: “As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned.”
“As soon as possible.” Sounds like beating feet to me, no?
Then: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”
Notice that, while he did send out a deputy to backtrack a bit, Maliki did not retract any of what he originally said. Furthermore, even if coalition forces get the violence in Iraq down to a manageable level (and it seems they have), McCain has never spoken like someone who expects a “limited” tenure of coalition troops. He wants them there even after violence is manageable. I can understand that from a Liberal interventionit viewpoint, but I don’t think it’s what Maliki’s asking for.
All told, a setback for the McCain team.
Jay:
Obama is talking about a strike force of thousands of men, neither candidate is talking about removing all Americans. They are talking about combat troops in the streets, etc. That does not mean there will not be any Americans in Iraq.
And according to CNN, Maliki is now saying his meaning was not conveyed accurately. It was a just a short time ago that the BBC misreported what he said with a bad translation, maybe this was something of the same kind of thing.
And remember this is Obama, he might have said anything to Maliki, kind of like the whole NAFTA/Canadian thing. Over heated rhetoric and all that.
So it seems this was just another media screw up.
If the press reported Maliki accurately and thoroughly (as prominently as they reported their “version” about what he said), this would be a setback for Obama.