The report in the German magazine Der Spiegel that Iraqi PM Maliki had endorsed Obama’s withdrawal plan were surprising and dismaying. The Obama campaign quickly issued a statement praising the remarks:
Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.
I’ve quoted the statement because it might not stay up for long. CNN is now reporting the Prime Minister’s office issued a statement saying his remarks were “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.” (Via Gateway Pundit, via Instapundit.)
What really happened? Kevin Drum argues that Der Spiegel’s report was accurate. (He would certainly like it to be so.) It’s not plausible, he argues, that three separate remarks were mistranslated. In a way, I think Drum isn’t far from the mark. I suspect that “mistranslation” will prove to be a red herring. (But, I’ll change my mind about this if Der Spiegel doesn’t release the raw audio.) What I think happened here is Maliki is not used to speaking with a western press that twists your remarks to fit its preferred narrative. I think he said that he’d like to see Coalition troops leave (there’s no secret about that), and that a 16-month timeframe is probably doable in principle.
In fact, the fact that he was talking about a hypothetical timeline, and not a rigid timeframe, is clear even from the Der Spiegel piece. The 16-month remark was in reply to the question, “Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?” Clearly, hazarding a prediction is not the same as endorsing Obama’s rigid timeline, despite Der Spiegel’s dishonest choice of headline.
Western politicians are used to speaking with a ideological, dishonest press corps, and still slip up. Maliki does not have that experience, and inadvertently gave Der Spiegel the material they wanted. Certainly he wants the Coalition out, but that doesn’t mean he’s suddenly changed his position and wants them out in 16 months even if Iraq isn’t ready.
Let’s pull back and look at the larger picture. Frankly, the difference between a rigid timeline and a general timeframe is not all that great any more. Before the surge, a rigid timeline meant pulling out when Iraq was still in chaos, even if that led to genocide and a terrorist state in Iraq. After the surge, matters have improved to the extent that the rigid timeline may not be that far from what is safely possible. The surge was the whole thing. Without it, Maliki would never have been talking about the possibility of a near-term Coalition exit.
Where Drum has it exactly backwards, then, is where he says the most reasonable interpretation of the Der Spiegel controversy is that “Obama has shown good judgment and good instincts in foreign affairs.” It is exactly because of the surge, which Obama vigorously opposed, that we’re even having this debate. Obama’s judgement would have led to defeat, genocide, and a terrorist state in Iraq.
POSTSCRIPT: What happens now? The Maliki statement will blunt the political effect of the Der Spiegel interview. Der Spiegel will release the raw audio and Juan Cole will tell us it was flawlessly translated. Therefore, the netroots will argue, Maliki’s Der Spiegel remarks — and not their denial — represent his true position. But since Maliki will be standing by the denial, those arguments will amount to nothing.
Incidentally, in the Der Spiegel interview, Maliki also defends the necessity of the original invasion. Obama doubtless won’t be praising that part of the PM’s wisdom.
UPDATE: The plot thickens. Der Spiegel says they stand by their version, but they have two different versions, and they won’t release the raw audio. Interestingly, one of their versions tends to agree with Maliki’s statement. Also, the NYT has a third version, based on the audio that Der Spiegel will give to them, but not us. So there might be something fraudulent here after all. (Via Instapundit.)
Also, I may have given the press too much credit. They have a way to deal with Maliki’s denial: just don’t mention it.
UPDATE: More: there does seem to be at least some element of mistranslation. (Via Instapundit.)
Internet Scofflaw 