Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Obama's Huge Coup on Iraq: McCain Was Asking for It

By Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch. Posted July 23, 2008.


John McCain and the White House have been clearly dismayed and embarrassed by Iraqi govt. support for Obama's withdrawal plan.
Advertisement

Barack Obama has paid his first visit to Iraq, just as the Iraqi government explicitly matched the Democratic presidential candidate's 16-month timetable for the removal of American combat troops.

Senator Obama met Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in Baghdad yesterday during his visit, which had become overshadowed by a row over the proposed pullout. Mr. Obama did not raise his plan for withdrawal of US forces, the government said. But Mr. Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said his government was "hoping that in 2010 combat troops will withdraw from Iraq." This time frame is similar to Mr Obama's.

The White House was clearly dismayed and embarrassed by an interview given by Mr. Maliki to the German news magazine Der Spiegel in which he appeared to express agreement with Mr. Obama's withdrawal plans. Mr. Dabbagh later said in a statement distributed by the American military that Mr. Maliki's words had been "misunderstood and mistranslated".
Der Spiegel stood by its version of what Mr. Maliki said and said the translator for the interview was provided by Mr. Maliki's own office and not by the magazine. In reality, Mr. Maliki did say Mr. Obama's 16-month plan "could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq".

Differences over American strategy in Iraq and the number of troops to be kept there is at the center of the American presidential campaign. The Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has argued that US forces should stay in Iraq until it has won a victory, although it is not clear what this victory would entail. He successfully relaunched his campaign to become the Republican nominee last year by claiming that the US was succeeding militarily.

But it will be difficult for Mr. McCain to denounce Mr. Obama's plan as it is very similar to what the Iraqi government is demanding. Mr. McCain said: "I'm glad that Senator Obama is going to get a chance for the first time to sit down with General David Petraeus and understand what the surge was all about and why it succeeded and why we are winning the war. I hope he will have a chance to admit that he badly misjudged the situation and he was wrong."

The weakness of Mr. McCain's policy is that the fall in violence is attributable not only to the surge -- the sending of US reinforcements -- but to the Mehdi Army militia's truce ordered by its leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, and to Iranian support for Mr. Maliki. This makes the political situation in Iraq very unstable.

Mr. Obama is visiting Iraq as part of a congressional delegation, but was not planning to give press conferences while there. Mr. Dabbagh said: "Obama did not speak about anything which concerns the Iraqi government because he does not have any official [government] capacity."

The US is under pressure to send troops withdrawn from Iraq to combat the mounting Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, iraq, obama, white house, mccain, maliki

Patrick Cockburn is the author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama Campaign: No Prosecutions for Bush/Cheney Crimes
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Jul 23, 2008 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the "reform"? What happened to "Change you can believe in"?

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Campaign: No Prosecutions for Bush/Cheney Crimes
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Jul 23, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the "reform"? What happened to "Change you can believe in"?

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack Star
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 23, 2008 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see if I get this straight, MacCain goads Obama into heading to Iraq. He is photographed in a helecopter over Bagdhad, shooting hoops with the soldiers, meeting with world leaders and making speeches in Jordan and Isreal.

And what's McCain doing while all this is going on? He's posing with Poppy Bush at in fron of a shack at Kennebunkport!

And he has the gall to complain that the press is focusing too much on Senator Obama?

Ah! The comedy!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Six Months To Go....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barack Star Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Barack Star Posted by: carbon-based
did Obama also
Posted by: richholland on Jul 23, 2008 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
talk about Israel discussing with France, Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah as a preparation for an Israeli attack on the Iran nuclear facilities???

what is the real scenario, why both candidates want to expand the war the coming years???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: did Obama also Posted by: weathered
Change We Can Believe In
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jul 23, 2008 2:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, Obama seems to want to pull the troops out of Iraq so he can pack them off to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's change we can believe in! Jumping from one quagmire into another with both feet, making the same mistakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kinda fun to watch em try to spin this
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 23, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Makin me a little dizzy tho.

ROFLMAO!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's FIRST trip?
Posted by: Forrest for the Trees on Jul 23, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patrick Cockburn's assessment of Obama's recent visit to Iraq may be politically astute, but it is inaccurate from the first sentence.

Barack Obama visited Iraq in January of 2006. Senator Obama's opinion of the situation in Iraq (per his recorded statements) was generally the same then as it was in the years prior to 2006 and the two years since: there's a failing military strategy that stems from the flawed leadership from the top down.

McCain's campaign can spin this six ways to Sunday, but Barack Obama has been resolute in his opinion of the situation in Iraq and the false reasoning that got us there.

Given Senator McCain's lack of knowledge regarding history and geography (he apparently doesn't know that Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country since the early '90s, nor that Pakistan and Iraq don't share a common border), perhaps the Senior Senator from Arizona can be forgiven for forgetting that yesterday's visit to Iraq was, in fact, not Senator Obama's first time in that country since we illegally invaded it. (Patrick Cockburn, you don't get the same reprieve; you need to get your facts straight.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hopscotch, Chicago Style Posted by: edith
McCain, a 30 year "veteran" of Congress?
Posted by: Sissy on Jul 23, 2008 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know if the rest of you are as boggled as I am about McCain, but I have to tell you that the deeper we get into this campaign year the more amazed I am becoming.

First of all for most of us anywhere left of center, all knew that "W" is and was totally clueless from the beginning of his presidency. You could be a little "generous" in your critique of this totally failed presidency and say "well, he didn't have any Washington experience", and could get away with it for a minute or two of the conversation.

But what is McCain's excuse?

Here is a guy who has spent nearly 30 years as an insider, courting the press as his base so he would get rave reviews and not having a single clue as to the economy, the history or worse yet, the presence of mind to represent his constituents other than to rubber stamp the Republican leadership and have the unmitigated gall to say he was a "maverick". Right now he is furious at the attention that Obama is receiving and has only himself to blame for Barack going over seas at this time. If Obama were making all the stupid, inane, inaccurate, flip flopping statements that this total joke of a candidate is, he would be buried in the polls.

Perhaps McCain should kick back and not say too much. Going after the press and whining about the attention he's NOT currently getting may once again as needling the Obama camp to travel, McCain may get more than he wished for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry John - right guy wrong time! Posted by: carbon-based
Otto .
Posted by: otto on Jul 23, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain and Republicans Unanimous have already concluded that the surge has worked. So what reason, what victory, is left and why do troops have to stay in Iraq?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the new jew generation Posted by: edith
Re: visiting Iraq
Posted by: MTguy on Jul 23, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting on all points, this one was. However, when our politicians are visiting Iraq, why do they not go to the 'hot zones' where things are tenuous at best? They always seem to visit the places where things are going great or are at least improved. I don't think they're getting an accurate overall picture of what's going on in the country based upon what they're being given to see.

I still maintain that until the Iraqis decide they want to live in a democracy, we'll need to have troops there to act as referees. That could be a very, very long time. I don't think we Americans have the stamina for it unless things dramatically improve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: visiting Iraq Posted by: Wacre
» RE: e: visiting Iraq Posted by: logic
spin spin
Posted by: logic on Jul 23, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they run the "black" man and the "woman" with plenty of press coverage so you think you're seeing democracy.The "white" man will get in. It will all go to JB's special recount room. The Iraq war would turn overnite if we sent real estate agents and land developers.A cursory study of American history will suck the humor out of that statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Won't Be Leaving Iraq in 2010 If We Bomb Iran
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jul 23, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama in a speech to AIPAC:

And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program (read: uranium enrichment), support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives - including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear - to the people of Iran, and to the world - that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime - from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.



There are two bills, one in the Senate, S. Res. 580 with currently 40 co-sponsors and introduced by Evan Bayh (who has been talked about as a possible VP for Obama...) (D-IN) and one in the House, H. Con. Res. 362 with currently 245 co-sponsors introduced by Gary Ackerman (D-NY) that would authorize the blockading of Iran to prevent them from getting refined petroleum products.

A blockade is considered an Act of War!

Right now as I post this message a carrier group in the Atlantic is conducting training exercises with the UK and France in preparation to blockade Iran under the name Operation Brimstone.

If those bills pass, and it looks like they will judging by the sheer number of co-sponsors we might very well be starting a war with Iran.

If Iran refuses to stop enrichment, we blockade them committing and act of war, and they retaliate by attacking the blockading ships what do you think the headlines of the major newspapers, tv shows, and news magazines are going to say?

Iran attacks the U.S.

They aren't going to qualify it with the U.S. committed the first act of war by blockading Iran. They will work the public into a frenzy to support war since Iran attacked us.


If we attack Iran, there won't be any getting out of Iraq in 2010 no matter what Obama's "plans" are.

I put plans in quotations since considering his possible VP and considering his AIPAC speech where he showed support for a blockade, it is quite possible he is pushing for a war just as much as McCain.

The Democrats for christsake sponsored both bills.


When will the American public wake up and stop throwing their votes away on these two war mongering parties?

At the very least call, write, your congressmen and your local newspapers about these bills. When Bush's deadline for stopping enrichment as a precursor to negotiations ends and Iran hasn't complied we might very well be looking at another war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Reread the bills and reread Obama's Speech Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Wonderful Newspeak You Have There Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
WARNING to Obama supporters: Don't underestimate Insane McCain and his necocon pals!
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 23, 2008 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain has employed a new campaign mantra that suggests Barack Obama is a traitor because "he would rather lose a war than lose an election."

This is just the beginning, folks. Stand by for the dirtiest GOP campaign in U.S. political history. If you think John McBush won't not use the worst tricks in Karl Rove's playbook, think again. Short of assassination, the PNAC Gang and other Republican neocons will do anything to stay in power.

Facing a torrent of rightwing smears, the ONLY way Obama can win in November is by making Senator Clinton his vice presidential candidate. And I have NEVER been a Hillary fan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The al-Maliki interview from the German newspaper
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 23, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
al-Maliki interview

Isn't it amazing what great news and analysis you can get from European news sources?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REASONS "THE SURGE" WORKED,
Posted by: TruthBeTold on Jul 23, 2008 2:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in addition to the US reinforcements ":
- Millions Iraqis dead.
- Millions of Iraqi refugees in other countries.
- Millions of Iraqi refugees ethnic cleansed from their homes and neighborhoods.
- Cement barriers walling off streets and neighborhoods
- $300.00 per month the Army is paying the Sunni and other groups not to shoot at our soldiers.
- Muqtada Al-Sadr's Mehdi militia's truce brokered by Iran.
- Iranian support for Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki .


FYI: Senator Obama made his first trip to Iraq on January 5, 2006.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks, Fanny666, for the Spiegel/Maliki interview link
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 23, 2008 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Spiegle translation affirms Maliki's desire to have coalition forces out of Iraq within 16 months, which corresponds to Obama's position.

But to me, even more telling was another statement Maliki made about our soldiers during the interview, as follows:

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

MALIKI: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

Sounds to me like Maliki wants us out NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama: A Pro War Progressive?
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Jul 23, 2008 6:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whats going on in the land of moonbats? Looks like the Surged worked now its off to Afghanistan: wait that will require more military spending oh how splendid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

themanwithadog
Posted by: the man with a dog on Jul 24, 2008 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems as if Obama may have read some of the quotes of the late Sir Winston Churchill who said JAW JAW not WAR WAR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Art Smith
Posted by: al7214 on Jul 24, 2008 2:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reporter and most of the MSM overlooked a statement made by Obama,regarding the responsibilties of the field commander as compared with those of the President. Obama agreed, that for the Commanding General in Iraq,the primary goal, and posssibly the only goal was to be successful in conducting the surge. The President, he pointed out, has to take into account the fact that the $12 billion monthly spent on the war
translates into our inability to adequately meet essential needs at home-Katrina, housing and mortgage crisis, proper care for wounded vets etc. This is the story that should have led the news. Obama made it clear that although the General will be listened to, his is not the only advice that will be sought or necessarily heeded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quelle Shock!
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 24, 2008 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did Iraq Leap at this plan because it is good, or because it actually IS a plan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McStain Needs A Change...
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 24, 2008 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He can believe in. I recommend "Depends".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]