Iraq Is Now A Losing Issue for McCain
Posted by Ashish on 07.19.2008
Now that Maliki wants a timetable set, McCain's strategy is in serious trouble...
The fact that Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki has now come out and basically endorsed Barack Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan, the entire basis of McCain's campaign is in serious question. I don't want to overblow this but the defining difference between McCain and Obama has been on Iraq. McCain wanted to stay, Obama wanted to go. We now have Iraq's own Prime Minister saying it is time to go. Whether the surge worked or not is no longer relevant. The debate, as I think most Americans view it, is whether troops should stay, or whether it is time to set a date for departure.
For McCain to stick to his policy now, he would have to flip-flop from what he said in 2004:
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.
He said it very clearly in 2004, that if an elected government in Iraq that is not an extremist government asks us to leave, then we have to leave.
How the Iraq debate goes from here is anybody's guess, but Obama has a major game-changer here. He can now always point to the fact that Iraq's government wants to set a timetable and not doing so would amount to us forcing our will on another country when they want us to leave, AND he can say that McCain himself said that in this exact situation, we should leave. The majority of Americans already want out of Iraq, and that number is likely to increase once the impact of Maliki's statement is incorporated, not to mention the boost it gives to Obama's foreign policy credentials, thought by some to be one of his weak areas.
This news also will allow Obama to further reinforce his "right judgment" theme. He hammered Hillary Clinton with his "right judgment" to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, and now he can point to his judgment again and reinforce it with the fact that Maliki agrees with him while McCain has now changed his stance from 2004 and presumably wants to stay in Iraq even though Iraq's government wants to set a timetable to get us out.
Iraq has been one of the few issues where McCain had a somewhat even playing field, if not an advantage, with Obama. But this news now instantly turns it into a negative issue for McCain. In a debate, Obama is always going to have the trump card -- that Iraq officially wants a timetable now.
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on July 19, 2008 at 07:03 PM
Like Obama doesn't Barack-Track? Gimmie a break!
Jerusalem?
2nd Amendment?
Gang Crime?
Iraq?
Obama has done nothing but Barack-Track (flip-flop) this whole campaign.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on July 19, 2008 at 08:01 PM
While good news for the troops, what was Obama's position on the troop surge that led to the stability that made it possible for Maliki to request our troops to go?
Posted By: Tristan (Guest) on July 19, 2008 at 09:26 PM
Tristan,
I believe Obama thought the surge would not bring about positive results, and might even make the "civil war" worse.
Once again, Obama showed how flawless his judgment is... wait a sec...
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 20, 2008 at 12:02 AM
You guys can say what you want, but the fact is that most people associate Obama with wanting to leave Iraq, and McCain wanting to stay. The second McCain says he also wants to leave now, everybody is going to view that as him shifting to Obama's position.
Posted By: Guest#3722 (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 01:31 AM
Politically, this is a major win for Obama. McCain has a point, but unfortunately for him, just about everyone is going to think he is flip-flopping if he now says he is OK with withdrawing troops and leaving Iraq. He has been linked too well with his 100 years comment and all of that. Whether this is fair or not is another argument, but politically, this is a killer for McCain.
Posted By: Greg (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 01:33 AM
Chris, Ash, Tristan... Everybody-
I'm genuinely curious. How much of the recent positive change in Iraq is a direct result of what was stated in "Surge" plan and how much of it is due to our negotiations with the Sunni or Shia factions that we brought over to our side?
I thought that most of the changes were brought about by these negotiations and that it just happily coincided with the timing of the surge. If this is true, then there really is no way to determine if the surge, in and of itself, was a success because the positive outcome was derived from a separate tactic.
Please let me know what you think.
Posted By: Rick (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 01:40 AM
Correction= Shi'Ite.... I need sleep.
Posted By: Rick (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 01:57 AM
Rick,
I think the surge helped in bringing the factions in Iraq together, along with the fact that Iraqis got tired of AQI beheading their own people.
The extra forces brought the violence level down, allowing the leaders of the factions to figure out a way to live with each other. If you go back and look at the last 12-16 months in Iraq, the willingness to work together was preceeded by lower levels of violence.
Two things we all need to remember though is that while things are much improved there, the situation can change. That's why just doing a blind "no matter what" timetable is dangerous, but one with measureable goals isn't.
Another thing is that while the Iraqi Army and police forces are growing and taking control of their country, they are going to need our help. According to our generals and theirs, they are 2-3 years away from being able to handle all their interior security and 6-8 years away from being able to handle any external threat. One of the reasons the surge worked is the air support we gave, and they are nowhere near able to handle that themselves. Until they can handle everything in-house, we need to continue to support them.
Finally, the real unsung hero in this thing is Al-Maliki. He has been willing to take on both the Sunnis and Shites, which as a Shite it must have been tough to do. He punked out al Sadr, crippling his influence. He has shown himself to be a strong leader after a rough start to things.
Our boys, our allies and the Iraqi people did one hell of a job turning that situation around. Let's hope it stays that way.
Hopefully we can use what we learned about counterinsurrgency in Iraq to fix the mess NATO and the idiots running Pakistan have made of Afghanistan.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 20, 2008 at 02:37 AM
It should be noted that the Iraqi PM has already refuted that he endorsed Obama's plan:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/
Posted By: DeimosMasque (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 09:54 AM
It is a fallacy to say the surge is working. We are paying---PAYING---these people not to fight each other. The second we stop paying them, the rival factions will be back at each other's throats. In my opinion, this is no long term solution to bring about peace in Iraq. We are bribing them to stop fighting with each other.
Posted By: jbrown (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 01:37 PM
"Iraq Is Now A Losing Issue for McCain"
Being the GOP nominee on the basis of plurality in the primaries, rather than majority at a contested convention, is the reason why McCain is McCain's losing issue - there's too many Republicans who do not like what he stands for. The opposition is fired up. He'll lose for sure.
Posted By: Ohleeoh (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Actually, unlike Obama McCain did win a majority of the GOP delegates. Obama only got the nomination through the super delegates.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 20, 2008 at 04:41 PM
It isn't clear if al-Maliki has withdrawn his statement. His own party continues to provide the quote unmodified and the only statement that he has made a retraction comes from CentCom, not him. And for obvious reasons we can trust Centcom exactly as far as we can trust Bush.
Even if he *does* retract the statement, the tone of the interview makes it clear that he prefers Obama's solutions to the Republican ones. All the while being clear he's not making an endorsement. When you have to say you're not making an endorsement of Obama multiple times in an interview, it isn't unreasonable to read a little wink in there.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 04:56 PM
The real defining difference between McCain and Obama are TAXES not the war.
McCain never said we would stay in Iraq forever (democrat spin), he said we would stay as long as needed but would probably have a base there in the future for a long time like we do in Germany, Japan, Korea etc.
Vote Obama...if you want your taxes increased. Believe it.
Obama's Change you can believe in is change you'll have left in the bank after your taxed to death.
The Democrats are dead set on raising Gas tax per gallon.
The post by DeimosMasque makes this whole story null and void.
It should be noted that the Iraqi PM has already refuted that he endorsed Obama's plan:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/
As for Flip Flops:
1-In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements.
2-Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement.
3-Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo".
4-In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5-While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
These are from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008 022402094.html
Obama said he would invade Pakistan.
August 1, 2007 (ABC News) - In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
Obama is a politician that panders (flip flops)to whoever he is speaking to at the time.
You can vote for Obama for your personal reasons but I think the facts say he is wrong and lacks experience (143 days of mostly voting present in the senate) not a decision maker eh?
Posted By: David (Guest) on July 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Surge? Who gives a rats ass if you can exactly determine whether "the surge" in and of itself is the key catalyst to a more blah blah blah blah.
None of you can deny the job the United States military has done in Iraq. Split as many hairs as you need to in order to say "Obama always right", the policy is not the worst policy in the Countries history and without question not a "quagmire".
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on July 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM
STAY CURRENT