Iraq's Timetable

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 8, 2008
All Rights Reserved.                    

          Blasting Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) in the second president debate Oct. 7 at Belmont College in Nashvillie, Tenn. for urging timetables, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) promised to leave Iraq “with honor and victory” on his terms.  Only one small problem:  The Pentagon can’t finish a new security deal with Iraq.  On Dec. 31, the old security agreement expires, giving the U.S. no legal right in Iraq.  McCain has staked his credibility on insisting the U.S. will leave Iraq on its own terms.  McCain can’t define victory but he blames Barack for waving the white flag.  Iraqis won’t sign a deal granting McCain’s wishes.  They insist on an agreement in which they can (a) prosecute U.S. soldiers for crimes against Iraqis and (b) establish a date-certain for withdrawal no later than 2011—a date roughly matching Barack’s timetable.

            While last night’s debate caused a collective yawn, the contrast between McCain and Obama could not be more glaring.  McCain wants to balance the budget by slashing needed social programs, something he calls “pork-barrel projects.”  McCain stressed there would be no cuts in the Pentagon’s treasury-breaking budget.  Obama, on the other hand, wants to end the Iraq War and save taxpayers $10 billion a month, a conservative estimate believed more like $12-15 billion.  Despite opposing Bush’s past tax cuts, McCain now wants new cuts totaling an additional $300 billion, yet the budget is just supposed to balance itself.  McCain offers no explanation how he expects to pay for the lost revenue other than the old Supply Side theory that says tax cuts equal a booming economy.  Obama points to the last eight years as proof of how McCain’s plan is doomed to failure.

            Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zabari signaled that both sides were close to a deal on a new security arrangement.  “There is a mutual desire to sign the agreement because it’s necessary for Iraq’s development to safeguard oil resources, to enable Iraq forces to handle security and to complete national independence,” President Jalal Talabani told state TV Oct. 7.  Talabani couldn’t have confirmed America’s worst fears that preserving Iraq’s oil wealth was at the heart of the Iraq War.  Since Cruise missile first hit Baghdad March 20, 2003, the White House denied that the war was about oil.  Vice President Dick Cheney refused to reveal what was supposed to be public records of his 2001 Energy Task Force, where he met with the heads of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, British Petroleum, etc. to carve out a U.S. energy plan.

            Without seeing Cheney’s secret minutes, the only logical explanation involves a promise to oil executives for cheap Iraqi oil.  Despite racking up an $80 billion surplus while the U.S. runs a $500 billion deficit, Iraqis insist the U.S. must shoulder the entire financial burden in Iraq.  Talabani echoes the same empty promises about the Iraqi military stepping up on its own.  When President George W. Bush descended May 1, 2003 onto the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in F-36B jump-jet in a flight-suit declaring “mission accomplished,” he promised that the Iraqi military would eventually replace U.S. troops.  Six years later Talabani talks about the Iraq’s forces handling security someday.  While Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki quibbles over a new security agreement, the U.S. continues to lose precious lives and spend countless billions with no end in sight.

            Despite Iraqis pleading with the U.S. to set a deadline for withdrawal, McCain insists it must be on U.S. terms.  “The Americans show no interest in committing themselves to any deadline or timetable and they thin that such process depends on the situation on the ground,” said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.  Othman echoes sentiments of the vast majority of Iraqis wanting the U.S. out.  Radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, presumed living in Tehran, whose political bloc controls 30 seats in Parliament, opposes any agreement that does not specify a date-certain for U.S. withdrawal.  Al-Maliki walks as dangerous tightrope placating al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose endorsements would legitimize any security deal.  Without a security deal, the U.S. will operate in Iraq illegally.  Sunnis, Kurds and al-Maliki’s Shiite Dawa party all want the U.S. out.

            Since the U.S. financial meltdown, Iraq has been on the backburner of a fiercely contested presidential race.  Obama connected the dots in last night’s debate, describing how the war’s costs have damaged the U.S. economy.  There’s no denying that the U.S. can no longer afford a blank check in Iraq.  Either Iraq begins paying for U.S. security or a timetable for withdrawal must be set.  McCain can’t ignore Iraq’s calls for the U.S. to set a date-certain for withdrawal.  It’s not raising a white flag when Iraqis don’t want the U.S. help.  McCain refuses to consider the U.S. military can’t impose a political solution or prepare Iraq’s new army and security forces to defend the country.  With British commander in Afghanistan Mark Carleton-Smith saying the war is not winnable, the U.S. must reinforce troop strength or risk failure.  Getting bogged down in Iraq hasn’t helped the U.S. succeed in Afghanistan.

  John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyxing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.