Iraqi Gov't Issues Oops

In a follow-up about this thing I wrote two days ago...

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki got George Bush to agree to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. But this didn't get him any street cred in his part of the world. Al Jazeera said:

There's a rumor going around that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is feeling his oats, flexing his muscle, and displaying a newfound confidence that has allowed him to challenge the American occupation of Iraq...But that's mostly wrong.

Now he's losing even more cred as he backtracks in a really lame way. In an interview with Spiegel:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

But then somebody was like, "shit, what if Obama loses?" and issued this official fart:

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error.

The New York Times says about this:

Naturally, Mr. Maliki did not want to imply he was backing one candidate over another in a foreign election.

And the Atlantic Monthly says:

Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing.

Plus, Spiegel has, like, transcripts.

So basically the moral of the story is that Maliki can't get no R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Iraq Asserts Adolescent Independence

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has finally succeeded in getting president Bush to agree on setting a timetable for troop withdrawal.

The AP says:

The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said.

Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.

It's like when your teenage children keep pushing the limits in their natural drive to become independent.

And then there's a surprise move where they help each other save face:

Friday's White House statement was intentionally vague and did not specify what kind of timelines were envisioned. That allows Iraqi officials, who are facing elections in the fall, to argue they are not beholden to Washington or willing to tolerate a permanent military presence in Iraq. For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework for keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

Bush ought to be proud.

But in the Middle East, al-Maliki is not exactly seen this way.

Al Jazeera says:

There's a rumor going around that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is feeling his oats, flexing his muscle, and displaying a newfound confidence that has allowed him to challenge the American occupation of Iraq. As a result -- so the story goes -- Maliki has suspended talks with the United States on a long-term security agreement, and has spoken out in favor of a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces.

But that's mostly wrong. From the start of his reign as prime minister in 2006, Maliki has been a weak and ineffectual leader. His political base is exceedingly narrow, and his Dawa Party is virtually nonexistent as a political force in Iraq today.

It seems that standing up to Bush will not be enough to gain him respect in his own part of the world. He's dealing with pressure from all sides:

Both Maliki and ISCI want to maintain U.S. support for the army and police, which have grown astronomically, from 337,000 in 2007, to 556,000 in 2008. So they can't afford to alienate Washington. At the same time, Maliki and ISCI are responding to strong pressure from Iran, which wants the Americans out of Iraq, and from Iraqi nationalists, who feel the same way. (Of course, the nationalists also want Iran to get out of Iraq.) That is not a formula for political strength.

US Caught with Hand in Cookie Jar

Photo by soldiersmediacenter.

This AP article lists violent incidents in Iraq for the week, including a remote-detonated truck bomb, a failed suicide bomb attempt by a female Iraqi, and a raid led by the US in which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cousin was killed.

This last bit is the most interesting part because the US had previously agreed to hand over control of this area to Iraqi forces.

AP says:

Officials close to the prime minister said the killing enraged al-Maliki, who has been locked in negotiations in recent months over a long-term security agreement with the United States.

Al-Maliki demanded an explanation from the Americans, who promised an investigation into the incident, said the officials Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Karbala Gov. Aqil al-Khuzaie said in a statement Saturday that the raid was a violation of an agreement signed with the U.S. last year that transferred Karbala to the control of Iraqi security forces.

This move may or may not have consequences for the US in Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet are working hard to destroy their image as Bush's lapdogs, beginning when they banned Blackwater mercenaries last September. And as they gain more and more control over their own security forces, the US will become more and more accountable for its actions.