Informed Speculation

…I’m well aware that the Iraqi Prime Minister gave a boost to the Obama campaign by seemingly endorsing a quicker troop withdrawal than either Senator McCain or the Bush Administration is in favor of, and indeed, in seemingly direct contradiction of the recent joint statements of the Iraqi government and the Administration of a general ‘time horizon’ of at least five years.  The New York Times notes that the Iraqi government is trying to walk the story back, but without specifics, and it seems that the Der Spiegel translation was accurate:

On the eve of Senator Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq, its prime minister tried to step back Sunday from comments in an interview in which he appeared to support Mr. Obama’s plan for troop withdrawal.

The interview with the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was published Saturday in the online version of Der Spiegel, a German magazine. It was widely picked up by American newspapers because it appeared to give an unexpected boost to Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who has called for an expedited withdrawal.

The interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

…[I]n Iraq, controversy continued to reverberate between the United States and Iraqi governments over a weekend news report that Mr. Maliki had expressed support for Mr. Obama’s proposal to withdraw American combat troops within 16 months of January. The reported comments came after Mr. Bush agreed on Friday to a “general time horizon” for pulling out troops from Iraq without a specific timeline.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Mr. Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

“Foreign soldiers in the middle of the most populated areas are not without their side effects,” he said. “Shouldn’t we look to an end for this unhealthy situation?”

Administration officials expressed confidence on Sunday that Mr. Maliki did not intend to create a rift with Mr. Bush on the issue of withdrawals, saying that both leaders conditioned any troop pullout on improved security in Iraq and would not impose a rigid timetable.

But a senior military official in Iraq said top American commanders expressed surprise and confusion over Mr. Maliki’s published remarks. The official added, however, that no American officers spoke to the Iraqi prime minister or any of his top aides about them.

“This isn’t the first time this has happened with the prime minister,” said the senior military official, noting that Mr. Maliki or his top aides had had to issue clarifications previously of comments that Iraqi or foreign journalists reported the prime minister said. “All of us were going, ‘What? What did he say, why did he say it and was it accurate?’ ”

Well, this is troubling to me – not because it gives a boost to Obama (let’s face it – barring some major turn of events, he’s the next president, regardless), but because it DOES directly contradict an agreement between the current ruling governments of both Iraq and America.  It suggests that either Maliki:

(a) says what he thinks his audience wants to hear (but perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised – in that respect, he would be no different than Obama), or

(b) is not a man of his word, and is simply playing the U.S.

The second option, of course, is completely unacceptable, given how much we’ve given in lives and money to ensure the survival of his government.

My position remains that of Bush and McCain: while it appears that we may be in a position to withdraw most of the troops far sooner than seemed possible a few months ago, it must be driven by events on the ground.  I don’t deny the impact Maliki’s statement may have on domesic politics, and I don’t blame Obama and his supporters for playing the comments to the hilt (they would be foolish not to)…but to the extent that his comments undermined official government negotiations, and appeared to endorse the views of a domestic political candidate, I find them both reckless and uncalled for.

The final word, though: as I’ve said before, we have to respect Iraqi sovereignty – and if they say get out, we’re going to have to…