Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Casts His Vote

[Clay]

By Charles Krauthammer
July 25, 2008

WASHINGTON -- In a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq
primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several
times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable
that accorded roughly with Obama's 16-month proposal, he not only
legitimized the plan. He relieved Obama of a major political liability
by blunting the charge that, in order to appease the MoveOn left,
Obama was willing to jeopardize the astonishing success of the surge
and risk losing a war that is finally being won.

Maliki's endorsement left the McCain campaign and the Bush
administration deeply discomfited. They underestimated Maliki's
sophistication and cunning.

What is Maliki thinking? Clearly, he believes that the Iraq War is
won. Al-Qaeda is defeated, the Sunni insurgency is in abeyance, the
Shiite extremists are scattered and marginalized. There will, of
course, be some continued level of violence, recurring challenges to
the authority of the central government and perhaps even mini-Tet
offensives by both Shiite and Sunni terrorists trying to demoralize
U.S. and Iraqi public opinion in the run-up to their respective
elections. But in Maliki's view, the strategic threats to the unity of
the state and to the viability of the new democratic government are
over.

Maliki believes that his armed forces are strong enough to sustain the
new Iraq with minimal U.S. help. He may be overconfident, as he has
been repeatedly in estimating his army's capacities, most recently in
launching a somewhat premature attack on militias in Basra that
ultimately required U.S. and British support to succeed. And he is
certainly more confident of his own capacities than is Gen. David
Petraeus.

Whether warranted or not, Maliki's very confidence allows him to set
out a rapid timetable for U.S. withdrawal, albeit conditioned on
continuing improvement in the security situation -- a caveat Obama
generally omits. But Maliki calculates that no U.S. president,
whatever his campaign promises, would be insane enough to lose Iraq
after all that has been gained and then be saddled with a newly
chaotic Iraq that would poison his presidency.

So Maliki is looking ahead, beyond the withdrawal of major U.S. combat
forces, and toward the next stage: the long-term relationship between
America and Iraq.

With whom does he prefer to negotiate the status-of-forces agreement
that will not be concluded during the Bush administration? Obama or
McCain?

Obama, reflecting the mainstream Democratic view, simply wants to get
out of Iraq as soon as possible. Two years ago, it was because the war
was lost. Now, we are told, it is to save Afghanistan. The reasons
change, but the conclusion is always the same. Out of Iraq. Banish the
very memory. Leave as small and insignificant a residual force as
possible. And no long-term bases.

McCain, like George Bush, envisions the U.S. seizing the fruits of
victory of a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive
strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong
ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the
infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power
regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran,
protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today
carry much of the burden of protecting the Gulf, thus allowing
redeployment elsewhere.

Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator
because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South
Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while
still retaining American protection.

It is no mystery who would be the more pliant U.S. negotiator. The
Democrats have long been protesting the Bush administration's hard
bargaining for strategic assets in postwar Iraq. Maliki knows the
Democrats are so sick of this war, so politically and psychologically
committed to its liquidation, so intent on doing nothing to vindicate
"Bush's war," that they simply want out with the least continued
American involvement.

Which is why Maliki gave Obama that royal reception, complete with the
embrace of his heretofore problematic withdrawal timetable.

Obama was likely to be president anyway. He is likelier now still.
Moreover, he not only agrees with Maliki on minimizing the U.S. role
in postwar Iraq. He now owes him. That's why Maliki voted for Obama,
casting the earliest and most ostentatious absentee ballot of this
presidential election.

------------

-C-

[MRbluster]

The only reason some polls show Obama just 6 or 8 points ahead of
McGeezer is because many whites are -- at this juncture --- afraid
that their friends and neighbors might somehow find out if they
"checked" for a black person.

But if the miserablejealousoldfuck is still the Repub candidate in
November, the Obama landslide will kick most pollsters in the
rectum!

A voting booth affords more privacy than some telephoner, who, you
never know, might know you from somewhere.

[mooseb...@hotmail.com]

You quoted Novak last week, now Krazy Krauthammer. Who's he gonna run
over?? :)