 | ||
 | 'Scare tactic' — Obama slams Muslim portrayal | |
| Dem convention has not helped local business | |
| Treasury asks for Fannie, Freddie relief | |
| McCain has no national service plan | |
| John McCain goes online | |
| Tony Snow 1955-2008 | |
| McCain, Bush React to Tony Snow's Passing | |
| MO Poll: Obama +5 | |
| Newsweek: Obama's Lead Slips | |
| Obama Responds With Radio Ad |
| Oil Paranoia | |
| Obama's Remarks to La Raza | |
| Remembering Tony Snow | |
| Obama's Remarks to the American Federation of Teachers | |
| Tony Snow Was a Gem |
| Mike Huckabee Talks About Election & Iraq | |
| The Stand That Obama Can't Fudge | |
| A Man of Seasonal Principles | |
| Roundtable on Obama's Financing Decision | |
| The Right Iraq Footprint |
|
July 13, 2008
Iraq a Tricky Issue for Obama
By Trudy RubinWe're reaching a McBama moment in Iraq, when realities on the ground may force the positions of the candidates to converge.
The McBama moment could favor Barack Obama over his rival, John McCain, but only if he fully grasps the current situation in Iraq.
Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and aides raised the issue of withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraqi officials are negotiating a formula to legally define the status of U.S. forces in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of 2008.
Obama cited Maliki to support his call for a 16-month withdrawal timetable. He had been under fire last week for "flip-flopping" by suggesting he would "refine" his Iraq policies if elected, so Maliki's remarks were sweet music.
That music, however, may be deceptive. Any candidate who wants dramatic drawdowns during his first term needs to pay close attention to complex shifts going on in Iraq and the Middle East.
This is a time of enormous flux in Iraq, as it is around the globe. A year ago, Iraq's security situation was still dire. A few months ago, no one expected a floundering Maliki to become a nationalist hero. Any U.S. president will have to "refine" his Iraq positions in 2009.
But it is essential to understand what's happening now.
Maliki and his aides have been waffling on the issue of a timetable. His national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, talked of a "time-line horizon." Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh spoke of "three, four or five years." Iraqi sources tell me that a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has denied that the preeminent cleric has endorsed a timetable.
What's going on? First, intense Iraqi political jockeying in advance of provincial elections later this year. Second, intense pressure on Iraqi political factions from Iran (more about this below).
On the first point, Maliki's political faction is small and weak, so he is playing the nationalist card. Improved security is triggering nationalist feelings among majority Shiites, who previously tolerated the Americans because they feared Sunni insurgents.
But, while displaying independence, Maliki is still hedging his bets. He knows the reason Sunni insurgents are no longer a problem is that 100,000 of them are now on the U.S. payroll. They still need to be integrated into the Iraqi political system.
He knows he was able to curb radical Shiite militias in Basra only when U.S. forces came to his rescue. Iraqi troops weren't yet able to do it on their own.
In other words, the security gains within Iraq are still a work in progress. Coming provincial elections will hopefully cement Sunni political participation. Increasing public trust in Iraqi security forces will, hopefully, create a real national army.
But the Iraqi body politic is still extremely fragmented. There is still violence and mistrust within and between sectarian groups. Four million refugees, both inside Iraq and in nearby countries, provide rich fodder for those who still want to destabilize the country.
These social and political fragments swirl around like pieces in a kaleidoscope, continually forming new patterns. The reason for the progress of the last year is that Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have repeatedly taken advantage of these shifting patterns. Examples: When Sunnis rose up against al-Qaeda, and when Shiites tired of radical Shiite militias, Petraeus and Crocker backed them up.
Yet Iraq is still splintered. More time is needed to solidify the pattern before a definitive time line is set. My guess is that Maliki will settle for a vague withdrawal horizon. Some form of agreement on retention of U.S. troops for a couple of years probably will be reached.
A smart presidential candidate would recognize that surging nationalism will limit the length of a large U.S. troop presence. Iraq is not Japan or South Korea, where troops could remain for 50 years. A smart candidate also would recognize that most Iraqi leaders still are not ready for all U.S. troops to leave.
Another key reason for the Iraqis' hesitation is their reluctance to be dominated by Iran. Tehran has been pressing Maliki and other Shiite leaders to reject a troop agreement. When I asked Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last week in New York what Iran's reaction would be to an Iraqi-U.S. agreement, he replied flatly: "It is our understanding that they [the Iraqi government] will not sign it."
But Iraqi leaders do not want to be controlled from Tehran any more than they want U.S. domination. Nor do they want Iran and the United States to fight their battles on Iraqi soil.
Obama has recognized that Iran is central to Iraq's stability and has called for talks with Tehran without preconditions. He ought to recognize that a time line for withdrawal of U.S. troops would be an essential card in such negotiations.
Setting a fixed time line now would leave Iraqis dependent on Tehran and undercut any U.S. leverage. It would make it harder to solidify the current gains. Maliki knows this; that's why I doubt he'll insist on a definite date. Nor should any president who hopes to withdraw most U.S. troops in his first term.
