Al-Maliki’s big boost for Obama’s campaign

What happened

On the first leg of a world tour designed to strengthen his foreign-policy credibility, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama got what he came for when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki essentially endorsed Obama’s timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq. Al-Maliki, who had told a German magazine several days earlier that Obama’s 16-month time frame was both desirable and “realistic,” repeated that assertion in a meeting with Obama. “The Iraqi government sees that the end of 2010 is an appropriate date for the withdrawal of the forces,” the prime minister’s spokesman later said. Al-Maliki’s statements were a blow to Republican John McCain, who insists that a timetable for withdrawal would undermine Iraq’s evolution into a stable, democratic nation. “Sen. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a politician campaign,” McCain said.

On his tour, Obama visited Afghanistan and the Middle East, using the cinematic backdrop of war zones and grand diplomatic venues to create a presidential aura. Before heading off to Europe, he met with a host of foreign leaders and American military brass, including the U.S.’s top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. Coverage of the trip was so extensive—all three network anchors went along—and largely positive that the McCain campaign complained that the media had “a bizarre fascination” with Obama.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

It’s very obvious what just happened in Iraq, said The New York Sun. Al-Maliki now believes Obama will win the election, and by publicly endorsing his withdrawal plan, the prime minister is simultaneously appeasing restless Iraqi voters and betting on an Obama victory. This back-stabbing of President Bush and McCain “has to be one of the most stunning pieces of political nerve in memory.”

In reality, “neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders” support Obama’s plan, said The Washington Post. When his statements are examined closely, al-Maliki’s timetable extends beyond Obama’s by at least seven months. Obama himself acknowledged that Petraeus “does not want a timetable,” and Sunni leaders in Iraq’s Anbar province told Obama that a rapid drawdown of U.S. troops there would likely lead to renewed violence among rival sects. Obama claims he’ll be flexible and respond to conditions on the ground, but his reflexive, anti-war stance against the troop surge raises questions about his judgment.

What the columnists said

McCain is now the odd man out, said Ross Douthat in TheAtlantic.com. On troop withdrawals, “he’s trying to claim that he, Bush, and the Iraqis are all on the same page” while “Obama’s way out in left field.” Trouble is, al-Maliki and Obama now basically agree, while even President Bush is moving toward a timetable. That’s going to make it very tough for McCain to convince voters that Obama is dangerously naïve.

If Obama’s sitting pretty, said Noam Scheiber in The New Republic, “the McCain campaign has only itself to blame.” After all, it was the McCain team that “delighted in bashing Obama for his two-plus-year absence from Iraq,” equating foreign travel with foreign-policy expertise. Now that Obama’s world tour looks like “the media event of the season,” the McCain camp is reduced to sniffing about photo ops and a fawning press corps. It turns out “the problem with making an incredibly superficial critique of an opponent is that it can be rebutted incredibly superficially.”

You’d be surprised how much you can learn on a seemingly superficial “fact-finding” trip, said Iraq veteran Peter Hegseth in National Review Online. But only if you care about facts. Obama clearly came to Iraq with “an ideological approach” that was not in the least “disturbed by any single fact on the ground.” He said once again that he would oppose the surge, despite its enormous success, and simply disregarded Petraeus and the Sunni leaders, who told him 16 months is probably not enough. That tells us everything we need to know about Obama as a potential commander in chief.

What next?

A broad consensus is now developing on a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal, said John D. McKinnon in The Wall Street Journal. Under pressure from al-Maliki’s statements and Iraqi popular opinion, the White House last week said that “improving conditions” in Iraq should help create an agreement for a general “time horizon” for a withdrawal. Though the timeline remains fuzzy, the magic date for the end of the U.S. occupation would seem to be 2010.