Barack Obama’s long-awaited and much-hyped trip overseas, in large part intended to overcome a perception that he’s not up to the job of commander-in-chief, seems to have come at the perfect time as recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran have played into his message.
Afghanistan, which Obama has long said should be the central front in the battle against Islamic extremism, returned to the front pages last week when militants breached a compound and killed nine U.S. soldiers, adding heft to reports over the last several months that the Taliban is resurgent there.
Then, in a reversal, the Bush administration sent Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns, the third-ranking official in the State Department, to Switzerland this weekend for a formal meeting with Iranian officials and representatives from other countries about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The meeting was, the New York Times noted, “the highest-level session between the countries during the Bush administration.”
After being attacked for months by Republicans for his willingness to meet unconditionally with Iran, the State Department’s negotiations amounted to political cover for Obama.
“I welcome news that the Bush administration has shifted course and will send an envoy for direct talks,” Obama crowed Wednesday.
But it’s Iraq where Obama got perhaps his most significant bon voyage gift.
First, the White House and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki jointly announced Friday that they were in support of a “general time horizon” for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, marking a break from the Bush administration’s previous refusal to discuss a timeline.
Saturday, the German magazine der Spiegel published an interview with Maliki in which he was asked to predict when U.S. troops may leave Iraq. He replied, “As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned.”
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Maliki said. “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for Maliki, later backpedaled, saying that any withdrawal would be done in concert with the U.S. government and in accordance with improved conditions on the ground. Dabbagh also said the published comments had been "misunderstood and mistranslated” but didn’t specifically point to any discrepancy.
Der Spiegel subsequently noted that the partial retraction came via the press desk of the U.S. forces in Iraq.
A Bush official said the administration didn’t think Maliki intended his comment to be interpreted the way it was and acknowledged that they helped prompt the clarification.
“[U.S. officials] let the Iraqis know that it was being picked up widely, Iraqis issued a statement to make Maliki’s position clear,” said the official.
Maliki, though, had already made his position clear. In a detailed Associated Press report that moved Sunday, Maliki is reported to have used the looming presidential election to put pressure on the Bush administration to reach a deal on withdrawal, telling his advisers, “Let’s squeeze them.”
He’s also put the squeeze on McCain, whose support for an open-ended U.S. troop presence in the country now seems to defy the wishes of the Iraqi government.
Democrats quickly jumped on the matter, reminding reporters that in 2004 the Arizona senator had said he’d be in favor of withdrawing troops were Iraqi leaders to ask them to leave.
“Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama,” said foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann in a statement issued on Saturday night in response to Maliki’s comments. “The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed."
But the Washington-Baghdad move to a “general time horizon” and Maliki’s comments have plainly focused the Iraq debate on terms preferred by Obama, just as he is poised to touch down on Iraqi soil.
In an interview, Scheunemann dismissed the idea that events abroad had shifted the debate in ways that favor Obama. He also said McCain stood be his 2004 remarks, and that “if the sovereign Iraqi government wants our troops out, our troops will leave. They have not said that.”
Maliki’s comments to der Spiegel were only “inartful,” Scheunemann said.
“If they’re going to go after inartful statements, we can have that debate,” he quipped, noting Obama’s past equivocations on such issues as the Washington, D.C., gun ban and status of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
