Fred Hiatt has been a silly person for a long time. But his latest contortions on Iraq are not interesting in its disingenuous but in what Hiatt will say in December 2008 or January 2009. Why do I say that? Because Hiatt writes:

[Obama] says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future. "What if . . . Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Leave aside Hiatt's contortions about what the Iraqi leaders said. What happens to Hiatt's rationale in January 2009, when there will be no Bush Administration (and hopefully, no McCain Administration) to force Maliki to halfheartedly soften his request that the United States leave Iraq? What then will happen to Hiatt's silly argument? One more Friedman Unit and Hiatt and his ilk will have to think up some other rationale for why the U. S. has to stay in Iraq.

By Big Tent Democrat, speak for me only

In the midst of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki's statements in support of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and McCain's response that he knows best for Iraq, I wonder if John Derbyshire is giving the best explanation of the new McCain position on Iraq:

Now that our American blood and money has seen off most of the enemies of Maliki and his Iranian pals, it is perfectly natural for them to believe they can finish the job themselves, without further assistance from us. . . We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell.

Now here is the question - why is it in U.S. interests to continue to protect the Maliki government with the presence of 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq?

Speaking for me only

This is truly an amazing statement from the Bush Administration:

"We don't think that talking about specific negotiating tactics or your negotiating position in the press is the best way to negotiate a deal," [White House Press Secretary Dana] Perino said after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was quoted in a magazine article supporting the 16-month troop withdrawal timeline proposed by Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate. "However, we understand that they're a sovereign country and they'll be able to do that," Perino said. "We're just not going to do it on our end."

(Emphasis supplied.) If you understand Iraq is a sovereign country, then you should understand that they should not have to have leverage at all in telling the United States to leave. The United States has no right to have troops in Iraq. Indeed, the ostensible purpose of the troop presence in Iraq is to assist the Iraqi government. Suppose the US, in good faith, disagrees with the Iraqi government's assessment of the situation. So what? If they ask you to leave, then you leave.

But of course the most amazing part of this is that the American People as well as the Iraqi government wants the United States to leave Iraq, but for the Bush Administration and John McCain, it does not matter what the people want.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Maliki government refines its position:

Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010. Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day. The timeframe is similar to Obama's proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months.

SPIEGEL: How short-term [a period of continued US troop presence]? Are you hoping for a new [security] agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: 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. 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-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

(Emphasis supplied.) Quite an indictment of the Bush Administration. Read the whole thing.

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki have agreed to set a "time horizon" rather than a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. The White House released this statement today:

"In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals," the statement said. It said those goals include turning over more control to Iraqi security forces and "the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq."

.... "The president and prime minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal."

It sounds like an aspirational plan rather than an action plan. It's also vague and certainly not binding. I'm not impressed.

Meanwhile, in other Iraq news, it looks like John McCain spilled some beans on Sen. Barack Obama's weekend travel plans to Iraq.

In a New York Times op-ed piece entitled My Plan for Iraq, Barack Obama repeats his commitment to a specific but flexible plan to withdraw most troops from Iraq over a 16 month period. John McCain, of course, has no such plan, but here's the key difference between the two candidates on Iraq policy:

I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

(emphasis added)

Nine U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan today, more than any number since 2005. As Big Tent Democrat noted earlier, President Bush is now suggesting some troops may begin pulling out of Iraq in the coming months.

Pulling out for where? Home? Not so fast. We may just be trading one war for another.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned during a visit to Kabul last week that there are more foreign fighters, including al-Qaeda members, in Pakistan's tribal areas, militants who cross the border and launch attacks against U.S. and Afghan troops.

Mullen has said he hopes improved security in Iraq will allow troops to be shifted this year from Iraq to Afghanistan, where violence is rising.

One of the things that concerns me about Sen. Barack Obama is his many references to the need to step up the fight in Afghanistan. [More...]

So the "Far Left" position on Iraq troop withdrawal now becomes the "centrist" view. The NYTimes reports:

The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Now, as usual, for reasons unknown, in the Village this is considered good political news for Republicans. Personally, I do not believe that but I also do not care. I want our troops out of combat in Iraq and anything that makes withdrawal from the Iraq Debacle more likely is welcome news.

The surge is working ... not so well.

Beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office.

Can you believe that the Bush administration might not be entirely accurate in its assessment of the surge?

Administration figures, according to the report, broadly overstate gains in some categories, including the readiness of the Iraqi Army, electricity production and how much money Iraq is spending on its reconstruction.

[more ...]

Retired Army Maj. General Antonio Taguba, author of a report on the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, has accused the Bush administration of war crimes.

Writing the forward to a Physicians for Human Rights study of 11 former detainees who were apparently tortured by US military personnel and later released, Army Maj. General Antonio Taguba (Ret.) writes that "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Unfortunately, that question will likely be answered in the negative if it isn't ignored entirely.

The Bush administration is finally getting what it wanted from the invasion of Iraq:

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

But remember, it's not about oil. The war is about WMD ... no, it's about making Iraq stable ... no, it's about spreading democracy ... ummmm ...