Our Friends Hate Us To Become Successful

by Eric Martin

Adam Blickstein takes John McCain to task for suggesting that the recent statements by the Maliki government regarding a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces are simply the product of political posturing:

The subtext of John McCain's response to the Iraqi government's strident assertions demanding clarity on the withdrawal of foreign forces in Iraq is this: Maliki is pandering to his political constituents who want to see American forces leave, for his own political gain, but any eventual agreement will be vague, flexible and conditional enough to allow us to stay. McCain calling Malki "a politician" seems to further confirm this line of thinking, allowing him to dismiss any clarion call of withdrawal as simply political rhetoric.

I think Blickstein has a point, but then, McCain might as well.  I'll explain what I mean, but first some background.

Judging by the increasingly strident statements made by his government's spokesmen, Maliki seems far less committed to a long term military relationship with the US than he did in November of 2007 when he signed a Declaration of Principles with Bush that established the general parameters of a future Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA).  After all, the Declaration of Principles made no mention of a timetable for withdrawal, and yet Team Maliki are suggesting that such a timeline is now the sine qua non for any future agreement(s).

There are at least two (perhaps overlapping) reasons for Maliki's recent pushback and sudden demand for clear timetables.  First, Maliki and his advisors (never enamored with the prospect of US forces remaining in the country long term) caught a glimpse of the SFA and SOFA that the Bush administration had in mind (or caught an earful from Sistani/the Iraqi people), and balked at the onerous and overreaching terms.  Combine this with the Maliki team's knowledge that a new administration is likely on its way in, and Maliki et al may have decided that their leverage has improved to the point that they can dictate the SFA/SOFA terms along the lines of their true preferences (or those of Sistani/the Iraqi people to the extent they differ).

The other possibility, the one McCain has been pushing, goes something like this: details of the SFA/SOFA leaked to the media/Iraqi population, and Maliki et al have been forced, by domestic political concerns (read: the nationalism of the Sadrists), to take a hard line position on withdrawal and the terms of the SFA/SOFA. Behind the scenes, however, Maliki will give the Bush team what it wants.  This view is, circumstantially, supported by the fact the Iraqi people (outside Kurdistan) overwhelmingly prefer a timeline for withdrawal, and have reacted in strong opposition to the details of the SFA/SOFA that were made public - though that doesn't necessarily militate in favor of the argument that Maliki wants us to stay, just that there would be public opposition regardless.

It is actually quite difficult to determine which narrative is more accurate.  Some, such as Swopa, have long argued that Maliki and his UIA allies have simply been biding their time, waiting for the right moment to evict the American interlopers - in which case, the first narrative seems more likely.  Others, such as myself at times, have argued that the fragile Maliki/ISCI coalition view US support as essential to maintaining their grip on power (at least for a little while longer) - in which case, the second option would be closer to the truth (unless the pressure from Sistani/the Iraqi people proved irresistible).  To clarify, it is been my contention that eventually Maliki/ISCI would want us out, as soon as they deemed their consolidation of power sufficient, but that such a moment might be some years off.

There are a few underlying trends that are significant no matter which storyline is more accurate in its description of reality.  As Blickstein points out, even if one assumes that Maliki and his allies are reluctant to see their American protectors depart, they might have boxed themselves into a withdrawal/sovereignty corner and created expectations that will be hard to walk back regardless.  But then, the same argument was made when Maliki made strong statements about kicking Blackwater out of the country after the October 2007 shootings that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.  Little to nothing came of that Maliki bluster, and he, indeed, was able to walk out of the corner that he had supposedly boxed himself into with an inflamed public.  He has proven that he is willing to act contrary to popular opinion, and could do so again.  Further, Sistani's actual views are still not known with any certainty.

More importantly, what does it say of McCain's argument for staying in Iraq that the alleged opposition to our long term presence from the elected government is simply a political move to bolster its support.  That is, our continued presence is so unpopular that even our allies are forced to pretend that they oppose us in order to secure votes in upcoming elections.  That doesn't sound like a position that we can maintain long term.  Even if Maliki can dupe the Iraqi population this election (assuming, ex arguendo, that that is his intention), how many times can he pull that stunt?  And will he survive long enough, politically, for a redux?

Comments

[Pithlord]

It's usually unproductive to distinguish too much between what a politician "really believes" and what is done for "political reasons." George Wallace probably backed segregation for political reasons. Ronald Reagan increased and Bill Clinton reduced the deficit for political reasons. De Gaulle left Algeria for political reasons. That's what politicians do, and Iraqi politicians aren't different. Even politicians who do brave things -- like Anwar Sadat, say -- still act for political reasons.

McCain is taking his domestically-based lack of respect for the political craft, and applying it to Iraq.

[hilzoy]

Eric: "That doesn't sound like a position that we can maintain long term."

Not to me either. Nor, frankly, can I see why we would want to. Personally, the idea that the Iraqi government is getting strong enough to start flexing its muscles fills me with unqualified joy (and some surprise: I didn't expect this.)

[Katherine]

Right: "don't worry about Maliki, he's just saying what he has to beause the Iraqi people want us gone, and surely that's irrelevant".

[Gary Farber]

Why won't McCain support the troops?

[Gary Farber]

Also, what Pithlord said.

[Alex]

I'm not sure if this is an accurate depiction of this situation, but what I'm seeing is:

The Iraqi people want us to leave. The Iraqi government, democratically elected so far as that goes in Iraq, is now also saying they want us to leave. McCain says we shouldn't leave because the Iraqi government is doing it for political reasons (they are...representing? their country). The surge is working, but we can't leave until we've achieved victory, even if the surge was supposed to make it so we could leave. Would McCain prefer it if Iraq were just autocratic and friendly instead of democratic and hostile?

My head a splode.

[Eric Martin]

Would McCain prefer it if Iraq were just autocratic and friendly instead of democratic and hostile?

Yes.

[dmbeaster]

Would McCain prefer it if Iraq were just autocratic and friendly instead of democratic and hostile?

Not just McCain, but the whole Bush administration with their post-war Chalibi plan.

And what Katherine said -- we are "winning" and have to stay in order to keep on "winning," even though the irrelevant Iraqi people want us gone.

I wish for once the brain dead war supporters would define "winning," and explain how that is possible when the Iraqi people hate us.

[none]

Winning is easy to define. Eliminate the rest of the terrorists, and we have won. There are already far less there than when Saddam commanded huge armies of them. The only thing "brain dead" would be to surrender. That is what a troop withdrawal without victory really is.

"Out of Iraq Now" is not an anti-war attitude at all, because a surrender would leave Iraq as it was under Saddam: a place that terrorists used as a base to attack other countries. McCain is probably the most anti-war of the two candidates, as he is most likely to remove the root cause of the war: the groups of terrorists in Iraq.

[gwangung]

Winning is easy to define. Eliminate the rest of the terrorists, and we have won.

Define terrorist. Operationalize.

[rea]

Iraq as it was under Saddam: a place that terrorists used as a base to attack other countries.

Oh-ho! We have a true believer in "Iraq was responsible for 9/11" among us!

[gwangung]

Oh-ho! We have a true believer in "Iraq was responsible for 9/11" among us!

Or a troll. I think we have one in the Jesse Helms thread, so...

[Nombrilisme Vide]

McCain is probably the most anti-war of the two candidates, as he is most likely to remove the root cause of the war: the groups of terrorists in Iraq.

Also, just for giggles: define anti-war. Please try to do it in a way that does not invite comparisons to clichés, because that last sentence has an extremely strong "Baby, you know I don't want to bomb your cities and restructure your bureaucracy, so why you gotta make me?" vibe.

[Yuppers]

""Baby, you know I don't want to bomb your cities and restructure your bureaucracy, so why you gotta make me?" vibe."

Or, to quote Sparks, "baby, baby, can I invade your country?"

[jethro]

Props for the Morrisey reference.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

And directly connected -- okay, completely off-topic -- Gorilla Jesus.

"Would McCain prefer it if Iraq were just autocratic and friendly instead of democratic and hostile?"

They love Hamas, which was democratically elected, right? And that Musharaff lost his elections?

Oh, wait.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"They" was intended to be a clear referent to the Bush Admin, actually, but I'm, like, all tired and stoopid.

[J. Michael Neal]

Or, to quote Sparks, "baby, baby, can I invade your country?"

"If you really loved me, you'd let me invade."

[Taco]

"If you really loved me, you'd let me invade."

"Countries, planets, stars, galaxies so far.... don't let freedom fade, baby - let's invade."

[Jesurgislac]

none: Eliminate the rest of the terrorists, and we have won.

"We had to kill the entire world in order to save it."