Obama, Maliki, Entire World Move One Way, And Not To McCain

It's really amazing to look inside the media mind sometimes. John McCain made very clear statements in the weeks prior to Barack Obama's Iraq trip that we cannot risk losing in Iraq and that things are fine in Afghanistan and no troop increases are necessary. Since that time, and the shifts on the ground in both countries, McCain has completely swapped positions, falling in line with Obama's long-held policy choices to blur the issue. What media types get from this is that Obama has shifted to the McCain position on foreign policy. They really are desperate to take this stuff off the table because they don't want the public to make the judgment they've already made, that they were wrong to cheerlead the country to war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, McCain is claiming that Obama wants to lose in Iraq, but since McCain has come around to the same position, I guess that means McCain wants to lose in Iraq, too.



McCain does want to change the subject from this successful Middle East tour Obama is having, but attacks of this nature, especially when they're followed by a recitation of Obama's goals, aren't helpful. Neither is telling Novakula you're about to announce your VP choice and then stabbing him in the back to draw a little attention to the campaign. The truth is that Republicans are freaking out that it's the Democrat, for once, who is driving the debate in the Presidential election. And so they'll try absolutely anything to derail him. So far, it's not been successful.

As for Iraq itself, now that Obama's left. As Maliki reasserts his authority and thoughts of a July 31 agreement on US troops fades, I think Matt Duss' op-ed in the Guardian offers the best perspective on the situation:

Despite attempts by the Bush administration and other war supporters to downplay the numerous statements from various Iraqi government officials over the last several weeks, there can no longer be any doubt that a strong political consensus exists among Iraqis in favour of a US commitment to withdraw its forces from their country. President Bush and John McCain have consistently tried to ignore this reality, each insisting that a US withdrawal would be contingent upon "conditions on the ground", and not on "artificial timetables". But there's nothing artificial about Iraqis' revulsion at the continuing presence of foreign troops in their homeland, and the political expression of this revulsion represents an important condition on the ground [...]

But Maliki also seems to realise that he will only be able to establish his government - and himself as a leader - when he is able to stand on his own two feet. Maliki understands, as George Bush apparently does not, that no government which derives its authority from a foreign military occupation, or even appears to, will ever be seen as legitimate in the eyes of its own people [...] this is not to suggest that Maliki fits the bill. He is too weak a leader, his government and people too divided for the Ataturk comparison to make any sense. Perhaps most importantly, no real consensus yet exists among Iraqis as to what the new Iraq will be. Consensus does exist, however, around the belief that no genuine, sustainable Iraqi unity can develop while the Iraqi government continues to be underwritten by a foreign military presence. Recognising the latter consensus is essential for enabling Iraqis to arrive at the former.

Exactly. And there may be a host of reasons, many of them selfish, for Maliki to insist on a drawdown. But ultimately, he is reflecting the will of the Iraqi people, and in so doing absolutely defying the colonial mindset as expressed by Bush and McCain.