is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
By AMIR TAHERI
September 15, 2008 New York Post (Excerpt)
"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.
Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.
According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.
Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides." New York Post
joellerose
Orlando, Florida, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 08:51 on September 17th, 2008
Well, well, well. joellerose, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 09:36 on September 17th, 2008
Yes, the NY Post certainly offers an unbiased view of world events.
at 12:24 on September 17th, 2008
This report of Obama's attempt to influence the Status of Forces Agreement can be found on several sources. When you can't attack the facts, attack the messenger.
at 09:53 on September 17th, 2008
Just like the HuffingtonPost, right?
at 01:34 on September 19th, 2008
First of all only Amir Taheri is saying that Obama insisted on anything. Notice how the first quote ends with "He asked me...?" Secondly Taheri claims this occured in July; Zebari says that he was asked this question by Obama when he was in Washington and met with McCain. See this rough translation http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.asharqalawsat.com/details.asp%3Fsection%3D1%26issueno%3D10880%26article%3D486505&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ar&tl=en
Quoting rough translation:
" : Why not postpone Iraqi government signing the agreement with the security management that is about to leave with the expectation that the new American administration?
This question he asked me (Barak Obama) when I was in Washington some time ago I met with McCain and with Obama and Obama asked me why you urgency in signing this agreement, especially with the approaching change in the American administration and why not wait until the advent of the new administration next year even signed an agreement with A new administration and we agree on some issues and matters and the answer is with Obama, including: Iraq, I think that even if there was a democratic administration in the White House, it is better to have a policy instead of thinking exists in the file for a long time to be resolved including the nettle that the Convention are not binding The next administration be comfortable in dealing with the Iraqi people rather than the start of the crisis and their problems and seek solutions."
Now back when Obama seems to have asked this question no one in the Bush administration was really talking about troop draw downs. Secondly some members of Congress have expressed the desire to see and ratify any status of forces agreement or strategic framework agreement. See here:http://www.cfr.org/publication/16448/
The concern is that Bush would sign an agreement that tied the hands of the nex administration. Ironically the Iraqi Parliment unlike our Congress has to ratify any agreement with a two thirds majority. If asking a question about on going policy discussions or stating an opinion or position on a given issue is illegal, it would mean that a journalist who asks such a question and states an opinion could be accused of conducting negotiations without authorization during the course of a simple interview! It does not make sense as such a charge would violate the first ammendment. It's probably why only one person has ever been indicted under the Logan act in the past 209 years! Asking a question and stating an opinion are not negotiations.
Amir Taheri is mischaracterizing both what Obama himself has said and what Zebari has said. It really does not help that Mr. Taheri has a history of credibility issues. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri