Amir Taheri is doubling down on his allegation that Barack Obama implored Iraqi officials to delay finalization of agreement for U.S. troop withdrawal and their continued presence in Iraq until after the U.S. election. He cites as evidence the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s remarks and Obama’s own words. Taheri brushes away the Obama camp’s distinction between the related but distinct Status of Forces andStrategic Framework Agreements and homes in on Obama’s own words:
Here is how NBC reported Obama’s position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: “Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.”
In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement – as his rebuttal now claims.
The NBC report continues: “Asked by NBC’s Lee Cowan if a timetable for the Status of Forces Agreement was discussed, Obama said, ‘Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that’ s a six-month extension.'”
. . .
Obama also told NBC: “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.
“And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we’re entering into the heat of political season, that we’re probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.
“As I said, my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don’t have a situation in which US troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate.”
Taheri then refers to the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s comments on the issue:
In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari says: “Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administation next year and agree on some issues and matters.”
Again, note that Zebari mentions a single set of agreements, encompassing both SFA and SOFA.
Zebari continues: “I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do.”
In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, while Zebari was urging him not to “waste time.”
Zebari then says: “I pointed out to him [Obama] that the agreement being negotiated [with the US] was not to be necessarily binding on the future administration unless it wanted to cooperate with the people of Iraq instead of [causing] crises and problems from its very start.”
To be frank, I don’t know what to make of all this. (Others suspect Taheri’s account is accurate, but lack firsthand knowledge of the relevant events.) But several things are clear. Obama should be compelled to provide some basic facts: who was present, what record of the meeting exists and what precisely was he communicating to the Iraqis. If we had an independent, truly adversarial press (that is one not adversarial just towards one candidate), they would be screaming for this plus access to those present at the meeting. Can you imagine if John McCain were accused of asking a foreign government to accelerate or retard progress on a matter of national security because of the upcoming election?
That may or may not be what happened here. But it is time to start asking hard questions.
