Iraqi PM Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plan

[spanone]

(CBS/AP) In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he supported a plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

When asked when he thinks U.S. troops should leave Iraq, al-Maliki told the magazine, "As soon as possible, as far as we are concerned."

He added, "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."

Al-Maliki deferred, however, from offering outright support for Obama's candidacy. "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement," he said. "Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business."

The prime minister, who has spoken of setting a timetable for U.S. withdrawal - an option that has been anathema to the White House - discounted the Bush adminstration's concerns.

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," al-Maliki told Der Spiegel. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al Qaeda and the militias."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/19/iraq/printable4275137.shtml

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

1. "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned"

That doesn't sound as nuanced as General Petraeus suggested it was yesterday, in his interview with Andrea Mitchell. Yesterday, Petraeus said that the enemy had a vote in when to withdraw, implying that there would be no withdrawal at all if the conditions concerning the "enemy" didn't allow it. Here's how Petraeus interpreted Al-Maliki's demands for withdrawal:

"...It depends on the conditions, depends on the missions set, depends on the enemy. The enemy does get a vote and is sometimes an independent variable. Lots of different factors I think that would be tied up in that. ..."

"...Again, what he has said is not set a timeline or a timetable - he said time horizons- which again, we tend to think there's nothing wrong with talking about time horizons. Again, what you do is you make assumptions, you talk about conditions, he's still talking about them, conditions permitting, and that is a kind of dialogue that's going on between those who are negotiating the strategic framework agreement. ..."

So now the enemy gets a vote, too?