Interesting piece in the NY Times

optimusprime

optimusprime

Active Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
336
Location
IL US
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

By AMIR TAHERI

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

Anyone care to guess the chances of this ending up on CNN or the like?
 
Last edited:
Your thread title says NY Times, but that article is from the NY Post. I'm pretty sure they're completely different (and explains why the op-ed is not liberal).
 
optimusprime said:
Right, oops, thanks. :?
Click to expand...

Yeah, huge difference. For one, the NY Times is actually respectable.

I should hope Obama has enough sense to know not to instantly evacuate all American troops in Iraq the second he gets elected, but it's still a marked difference than vowing to stay in there "for one hundred years". Promising a timetable to get out should be interpreted as getting the ground forces to work harder, not to rush them and create a sloppy mess (though that's probably going to happen anyway).
 
Exactly. You'd have to be a moron to have them just drop everything and get out. However, actually moving towards getting them out is what we need IMO.
 
Well that's exactly what i said in the "Who in their mind will vote for McCain" topic. Both candidates, although having announced different IRAQ plans and strategies, are going to do exactly the same. Stay there until it starts snowing in hell, basically.

McCain said, that they should pull out responsively (whatever that means) and it can take as long as needed, Obama, to get reelected (if he wins later this year) will have to do it in 3-4 years, which is more probably enough to execute the plan, and it will grant him the 2nd term.

So both candidates are kinda planning to do it in 3 years, realistically US troops will be stuck there for a decade, but, and everyone understands it, as soon as they're gone things will be back the way they were, not instantly, but in time - for sure.
 
optimusprime said:
Anyone care to guess the chances of this ending up on CNN or the like?
Click to expand...

That's as likely as the New York Times being respectable. ;)

Taheri has a follow-up column, by the way:

OBAMA OBJECTS
BUT THE EVIDENCE SAYS I'M RIGHT

IN Monday's Post, I discussed how Barack Obama, during his July trip, had asked Iraqi leaders not to finalize an agreement vital to the future of US forces in Iraq - and how the effect of such a delay would be to postpone the departure of the US from Iraq beyond the time Obama himself calls for.

The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was "filled with distortions," the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).

The Obama camp says I confused the two. It continues: "On the Status of Forces Agreement, Sen. Obama has always said he hoped that the US and Iraq would complete it - but if they did not, the option of extending the UN mandate should be considered.

"As to the Strategic Framework Agreement, Sen. Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress - especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it."

If there is any confusion, it's in Obama's position - for the two agreements are interlinked: You can't have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.)

And the claim that Obama only wanted the Strategic Framework Agreement delayed until a new administration takes office, and had no objection to a speedy conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement, is simply untrue.

Here is how NBC reported Obama's position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: "Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement."

In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement - as his rebuttal now claims.

The NBC report continues: "Asked by NBC's Lee Cowan if a timetable for the Status of Forces Agreement was discussed, Obama said, 'Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that' s a six-month extension.'"

That Obama was aware that the two accords couldn' t be separated is clear in his words to NBC:

"Obviously, we can't have US forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the UN resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration -- in a weakened state politically -- ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain' s administration." (Emphasis added.)

Obama also told NBC: "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.

"And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we're entering into the heat of political season, that we're probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.

"As I said, my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don't have a situation in which US troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate."

This confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.

Read the rest here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm?page=0
 
So basically Obama is saying that no planning can take place while Bush is in office so when Obama gets elected he can take all the credit?
 
Symbotic said:
So basically Obama is saying that no planning can take place while Bush is in office so when Obama gets elected he can take all the credit?
Click to expand...

Yes. I maintain it is a violation of the Logan Act. Too bad there aren't any rogue federal prosecutors with the grapes to indict him. That would make for some interesting television.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top