Is the quasi-endorsement of Barack Obama's withdraw timetable by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a transformative event in the campaign? Marc Ambinder -- and his Republican source -- certianly seem to think so.
I tend to think the impact will be felt too, but perhaps somewhat indirectly. Foreign policy is the one area where the American public does not have a great deal of patience for nuance and detail -- even a detail as important as this one. At a soundbyte level, the Republican counter-spin "see, the surge worked!" -- is liable to be at least somewhat effective.
This does, however, put McCain on the defensive on foreign policy, which is especially problematic as this was one of the few issues where he had the opportunity to play offense. Getting the boys home -- which seemed like a slam-dunk winner for the Democrats six months ago -- might not have been one by November. Polling in key swing states had begun to show slight majorities opposed to a specific withdraw timetable, and unless the Republicans do an exceptionally good job of winning the spin war, this will change all of that.
115 comments
Nate,
If Maliki can say a timetable is the most appropriate way to go in Iraq, then he can only say such a thing do to the surge that Obama said would not work and in fact, said would make things worse.
John McCain will not be on the defensive, if anything, his judgment on the issue is even better than before. Absolutely wishful thinking on your part, Nate. Obama should have stayed in America and concentrated on reducing the price of gasoline.
Republicans are masters of spin wars. While I'm not worried that about spin wars with Senator Obama, it is unlikely that he will win them. Much like the spin wars force feed the public, Senator Obama must do so with the truth and his long held positions.
The Iraqi Prime Minister's words do not bode well for the Republican spin of "withdrawal is surrender." And I quote...
"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
Obama needs to keep pushing the fact that the sudden reversal in Bush's Iranian policy is a position he's long praised as the RIGHT solution. In my opinion, if Obama can shed light on the change of tone with Iran and the sudden embrace of his own Iraq policy by McCain, no amount of spin will be able to move him.
Jason, I agree with you in part. I think the McCain camp will have some success with the claim that the surge has worked, especially if there is further undercutting of the Dem argument that the purpose of the surge was to bring reconciliation within Iraq (the return of the Sunni factions to ministerial posts is a sign of that).
On the other hand, your statement that Obama should have stayed home is absolutely wrong -- from Obama's perspective -- because he needs this trip to take certain arguments by McCain et al. off the table. On his last trip to Iraq, McCain had that very confusing episode in which he mixed up Shiia and al Qaeda and needed Lieberman to wisper in his ear.
Furthermore, Obama was absolute playing his cards right by heading first to Afghanistan, to bring emphasis to his assessment and argument over the last year that immediate attention is needed there -- and not just to the military aspect but to the popular programs and infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Anything else he may accomplish from here on out on this trip is a bonus (not without certain risks, of course).
Jason,
Even if the surge has made it more possible for Maliki to demand a timetable, this still helps Obama more than it helps (or hurts) McCain.
Voters (as Nate hints at) really don't care who was right about the surge. This kind of school yard drama is left to us blogging commenting types. When McCain says that the surge allows us to set a timetable, voters hear:
"We are leaving Iraq soon."
Which is what, of course, Obama has promised and what McCain has not. Because the real issue for voters is -- "What will you (Obama, McCain) do as president." Some of this "I was right, dammit!" helps people figure out what someone might do as president, being right and in tune with the nations' desires about what should be done is more important.
McCain now is in the unenviable position of saying he would have to do what Obama has promised to accomplish for more than a year....
All told, good for Obama.
Immanentize said...
You're wrong, McCain promised VICTORY. His surge strategy was the right thing to do, and has led to the comments of withdrawal timetables.
McCain wanted to surge troops all the way back to 2005. Obama wanted to withdraw troops, victory or no victory.
One is a Commander in chief, the other is a wannabe.
Chuck Todd on meet the press said the republicans were panicked over this trip and how well it was going.
McCain and Bush are using Obama`s talking points now on Iraq. When the PM of Iraq endorses Obama`s withdrawl stance this is bad for McCain.
Jason,
Here's the funny thing: Winners of wars don't get rewarded.
George H.W. Bush won his Iraq war in 4 days. Didn't help him.
Even Winston Churchill was booted out, and all he did was win World War II.
If the war is not an issue, McCain has no other issues. The voters might have wanted him to keep us from losing in Iraq, but they sure don't want him in order to start any new wars he can win.
Of course the thing being overlooked is that 'the surge' may have been incidental to all these changes - don't lose track of the facts:
- They paid people to turn against the insurgents and to not attack outright and
- the Iraqi people finally got sick of these 'freedom fighters' killing Iraqi citizens.
And the difference still is that Obama wants us out of Iraq, no strings, and McCain wants a continued military presence.
I see this more as taking Iraq off the table unless McCain flubs and makes it clear he has no intention of removing all American troops from Iraq then its a win for Obama
Did anyone note that this means Maliki thinks that Obama will win?
Even if you grant the McCain argument that he will be viewed as 'right' about the surge (a dubious claim which may or may not play), the positive effect is canceled out by the fact that Obama is viewed as being 'right' that the war should never have been authorized or fought in the first place (and that view is very much the mainstream interpretation - as recently as last week, about 60% of Americans believe the US should have stayed out of Iraq to begin with).
With those two things being a wash, it's Obama who gets the benefit if Iraqi officials (not to mention the vast majority of the American public) say we should get out as soon as possible. If we, the American citizens, clearly want to leave Iraq expeditiously, and the Iraqis themselves clearly want us to leave Iraq expeditiously, why in the world wouldn't the advantage clearly fall to the candidate who has asserted unequivocally that we ought to leave Iraq expeditiously?
Obama wins the spin war if he attack's McCain on his desire to remain in Iraq indifinitely and emphazizes the connection between the resolution of our economic problems in reference to getting out dependency on Middle East oil.
I love the idea of "the surge worked" because it's presented as though it should come as a surprise. OF COURSE the surge worked! We put MORE troops in Iraq which meant MORE stability/less violence. But what will happen when we try to leave? That's the ultimate goal, no?
We ultimately want to NOT be an occupying military force in Iraq. So... what worked????
The surge did work better than most people expected. And most people were right. It was a low probability that came off. This site is all about probabilistic thinking!
McCain himself has said that if they want us to leave, we have to leave. It's on tape.
He backtracks on that, and he looks like a flip flopper. Not that there is anything new in that, IMO, but the MSM is only beginning to grasp the picture there.
But the truth is, if Al Maliki is asking us to begin drawing down, then we need to respect Iraq's desire for sovereignty and begin to draw down...
I am not sure we will ever know if the surge worked or not. I don't think I've seen a single objective piece that weighs the what IFs, what if there was no surge...perhaps the Iraqis would have gotten it together even quicker had we NOT sent more troops, perhaps that would have given them a stronger sense of urgency, which is what the Dems wanted. and isn't part of the reason for the downturn in violence the fact that certain insurgents agreed to stop fighting? Would that have also occurred WITHOUT the surge? Does anyone have knowledge, objective answers for that?
I have no idea how any of this will play in the general election, however. IMO, Obama has made the right calls, visit or not visit, but the Bush Administration is also quick to claim them as their own. I have no idea how this will play with American public perceptions.
"At a soundbyte level, the Republican counter-spin "see, the surge worked!" -- is liable to be at least somewhat effective."
McCain can do his "the Surge Has Worked! " victory dance all he wants. He's royally screwed!
Either people believe the surge has worked: which means it's time to get out. Or, they believe that it hasn't worked: which means that it's time to get out.
Either way, Obama wins, McCain loses. The argument that "we can't leave, chaos would follow and the terrorists win" is just destroyed by the Iraqi government asking us to leave and let them deal with it.
McCain can spin any way he likes, but the American people want OUT now and he's trying to commit us to staying for "100 years." Doesn't even matter if there's casualties or "victory" the American people and the Iraqi people DON'T WANT US TO STAY! PERIOD!
ABC/Washington Post poll June 12-15, 2008:
"Do you think the U.S. should keep it's military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, even if that means continued U.S. casualties; OR do you think the U.S. should withdraw it's military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep forces: 41%
Withdraw Forces even if civil order is not restored: 55%
"From what you know about U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq; less than a year, one or two years, two to five years, five years to ten years, or as long as it takes?
Less than a year: 42%
One to two years: 21%
Two to five years: 9%
Five years to ten years: 1%
As long as it takes 20%"
Obama has concluded that it's futile to try and fight the idiotic media and McCain bombast about "the surge has worked."
All Obama has to say is: "If the surge has worked, it's time to bring the troops home and I have a plan to do it. McCain has a plan to keep the troops in Iraq. You choose."
Meanwhile back in reality-land, the surge propaganda is all B.S. of course. just a more modern version of the "five O'clock follies" of the Vietnam war.
The violence is down for 2 reasons, neither of which have to do with the surge:
1. Ethnic Cleansing, especially of Baghdad by Shiites. Fewer mixed neighborhoods = fewer people to kill. Talking about this as a "success" is like trumpeting the "success" of the Bosnian Serbs of purging Muslim neighborhoods.
2. The U.S. bribed the Sunni insurgents who were attacking and killing us to switch sides, by giving them arms. They then proceeded to destroy Al Qaeda because they had really good intelligence about who and where they were.
This short term "success" comes at the long term cost of arming the very Sunni Militias who were called "terrorists" before.
There's not much point in talking about this to the American people though, with the constant media triumph