what was that again?

There's been much debate as to whether Iraqi politicians were talking about a 'timetable' or a 'time horizon' in their various statements on the negotiations with the U.S. over a security agreement.   So Prime Minister Maliki made a point of spelling it out today:  no US-Iraq agreement which does not include a specific deadline for the full withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Maliki also claimed that such an agreement had already been reached, although Ambassador Crocker told al-Hayat that it had not been. 

A very high ranking American diplomat with long experience in Iraq recently told me that he expected the Iraqis to take this as close to the brink as they could, since they knew the importance the Bush administration placed on getting a deal -  basically a game of chicken, holding out for the best deal.  That's likely why, for instance, we haven't seen any moves on the part of the Iraqis to prepare the ground for a renewal of the UN mandate which expires at the end of December in case the negotiations fail... when you're playing chicken, you don't wear a seatbelt.

This is obviously a big deal. It clearly affirms the long-held position of Obama and many others in support of a strong, firm, public commitment to a timeline for withdrawal, demonstrating that such an approach is not only realistic but actually manifesting. And it surely shows how totally out of touch McCain is with Iraqi realities, and how wedded to an outdated and irresponsible position.

But here's why I'm less excited by this than some of my colleagues.  As with everything in Iraqi politics, there's likely to be a substantial gap between a political agreement and its implementation.  I assume that even if an agreement actually passes the Iraqi Parliament (which the speaker just said was unlikely), it will contain plenty of 'conditions-based' loopholes.  And I assume that both a Maliki government (and any likely successor) and a McCain administration would have every intention of exploiting those loopholes.   In other words, the upshot could well be to take McCain's 100 years off the table in American politics and enhance Maliki's still-shaky political position while legalizing precisely the long-term U.S. military presence it supposedly rules out.  That's why it's important to scrutinize the details of the agreement, and to get the right leadership in place to get the implementation right.

Comments

[Matt K.]

So is this to be understood as your endorsement for President? Or should that have been gleaned previously?

[Alex]

A very high ranking American diplomat with long experience in Iraq recently told me that he expected the Iraqis to take this as close to the brink as they could, since they knew the importance the Bush administration placed on getting a deal - basically a game of chicken, holding out for the best deal.

Yeah, that's what Americans like to believe. I am surprised you are taken in by it, AA. I think there's every sign - and has been since late June - that Maliki really means it. Because he is under enormous pressure not to go for anything less. American diplomats are probably fooling themselves, because they can't believe that there is something real behind, but it may be that they understand quite well the situation and are just putting up a front.

I come back to what I've already said widely. It is absolutely astounding that none of the professional analysts has gone into the politics behind Maliki's refusal to sign, absolutely central issue, but pass their time on the relatively trivial issue of the supposed crackdown on the Awakening people. Yes, the Sahwa people will be dumped, but it is mostly US briefings which are saying that it is happening now.

[Shawn Brimley]

Marc - I think that's right. Both sides are playing hocus-pocus with the politics of this, but I don't think that in the end the language on time-lines/horizons/ceilings will amount to all that much. What worries me most is this idea of Americans moving out of Iraq cities by June 2009 and transfering SOI contracts that same month. Yikes!

[Badger]

Shaun Brimley,

(1) could you explain "playing hocus pocus with the politics of this"? Are you suggesting the Iraqi parliamentary groups are in fact more amenable than what the Maliki remarks indicate...

(2) do you think there could be any hocus pocus involved in the Maliki crack-down scare (a lot of which is coming from the recent American visitors to the GZ...)