The Post columnist, Amir Tahiri has alleged in the first paragraph of his column (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0):
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.
The headline to this story, however, alleges something quite different:
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Are these two things the same thing? Does an attempt to delay an agreement equate to an attempt to stall troop withdrawal?
Amir Tahiri who wrote the New York Post piece which appeared yesterday seems to think so. His argument: Obama proclaims publicly that he wants the troops out by 2010. But by delaying this agreement until his administration is elected, sworn in and staffed, means, when Iraqi politics are also considered into the schedule, that nothing can be done before 2011 or 2012.
I do not see how anyone can say that this is conclusive. Obama will simply argue that when he comes into office he will insist on immediate withdrawal or at least a withdrawal sooner than 2011 and 2012. In any event, even Amir Tahiri describes the proposed troop withdrawal dates in the proposed status of troops agreement to be "notional" or provisional diplomat speak.
I do not understand how the charge can be laid to Obama unless one insists that troops cannot be withdrawn a) without a status of forces agreements, and b) never contrary to the terms of that agreement because those agreements contain a schedule which is fixed and not "notional".
But of course all of this leaves open the charge that Obama is attempting to interfere with the foreign policy of the United States to win an election. He is doing so because to scuttle an agreement providing for United States troop withdrawals leaves him free to promise the country that he will end the conflict, and these promises got Eisenhower elected in 1952 and Nixon in 1968. It exposes Obama as the worst kind of political opportunist.
At worst, that is the way the foreign minister of Iraq saw what he was doing. At best, Obama was so inept that he looks foolish and out of his league.
It opens the way for McCain himself and not his surrogates to declare that Obama would rather risk prolonging the war then lose an election. That is perfectly fair because it is confirmed out of Obama's own mouth:
He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.
"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration,"
At the very least it betrays Obama to be either an inept amateur or a brazen opportunist who would risk prolonging the war to win an election. Let Obama fight it out on this basis and see what happens to his election chances. Meanwhile, who knows what else might be revealed by officials in Iraq. Even reports of their subjective reaction to Obama's overtures could be quite damning because they might confirm him to be an inept intermeddler who made a damn fool of himself in Iraq.
No matter how Obama slices it he is stuck in a lose -lose. It confirms all of the detractors charges about him. Let him climb out of this hole for another few news cycles.
Let Obama whine that they are "mischaracterizing my motives."
