Obama’s timing could complicate negotiations between U.S. and Iraq

The timing of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s trip to Iraq could cloud an already difficult effort by the White House to finalize negotiations with that country over the future role the U.S. will play there.

The Illinois senator’s trip came 10 days before the White House hoped to finalize a strategic framework agreement with Iraq over future security and political relations between the two countries, an agreement the White House now says is not likely to be finalized by the end of the month.

{mosads}While the White House downplayed the effect Obama’s trip to the region has had on the negotiations, subsequent exchanges in the media between the senator, his Republican rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the White House and the Iraqi government have highlighted a growing divide between the two countries over how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq.

That divide was on full display over the weekend as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, seemed to agree with Obama’s assertion that the U.S. should look to begin withdrawing troops by 2010. Maliki distanced himself somewhat from those comments before clarifying Monday that 2010 does seem like an appropriate timeframe and that Iraq is hopeful that would be an attainable goal while stopping short of endorsing a set date.

The White House adamantly denied any change in a policy that has long stood firm against arbitrary troop withdrawal timelines, and press secretary Dana Perino reiterated that President Bush remains opposed to any arbitrary date for troop withdrawal. And McCain’s campaign stated again that “there’s a great deal of difference between having a time horizon, or a goal, where you hope to have American troops out depending on conditions on the ground, and having an unconditional date-driven withdrawal, which is what Sen. Obama wants.”

Both Bush and McCain have long stated any withdraw plan that includes a set date would be a recipe for disaster in the region, and both Perino and McCain aides said the success of the surge has allowed the negotiations to include talk of a “time horizon” in Iraq.

“Let’s be clear, this agreement that we are working on is nothing like the 40 or 50 arbitrary withdrawal plans that we saw many members of Congress support over the past several years,” Perino said Monday. “This is an agreement that we can work on based on the success that we’ve had in the last several months.”

Perino repeatedly declined to address what many viewed as the Iraqi government’s endorsement of Obama’s plan for a 2010 withdraw date, but she did say that the agreement would include “an aspirational goal.”

“It will not have any discussion about troop levels,” Perino said. “The next commander in chief is going to have to make those decisions. I would hope that he would make them based on conditions on the ground, whichever president it is. Whether or not it’s 16 months, or later, or earlier, I just don’t know.”

Perino said it’s not “disconcerting” that the Iraqi government is discussing timetables while Obama is visiting the region, saying that whenever “you get nearer to the end of a negotiation, the conversation intensifies and sometimes gets a little more vocal.”

Later, in an e-mail, Perino declined to say if the White House views the timing of Obama’s trip to be counterproductive.

“I’d say it’s probably a coincidence, though we’ve long said that July 31 was our target for wrapping up the negotiations,” Perino said.

When asked if the Obama campaign was concerned about influencing the negotiations over the framework, a spokesman pointed to a statement by Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, from last Friday about the purpose of the trip.

“It’s important to note that it is not our intent to make policy or to negotiate; we won’t do so,” Rice said. “There’s one president of the United States at any given time, and we will certainly honor and respect that, but we look very much forward to the opportunity for Sen. Obama to have an in-depth exchange on a range of substantive issues at a time when there are many pressing challenges before us.”

Despite that, the Obama campaign has hailed what it views as a change in administration policy, claiming that Maliki’s comments are “one more example of Obama leading on foreign policy — and McCain and the Bush administration following.”

In internal talking points provided to surrogates and obtained by The Hill, the Obama campaign said, “Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly voiced his support for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, and on Saturday he said he agreed with Sen. Obama’s plan to redeploy our combat brigades responsibly in 16 months.

“And the White House now agrees with the principle, too — approving a ‘general time horizon’ for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq,” the memo said.

The Obama campaign also took issue with Maliki’s clarification following apparent U.S. concern about the prime minister’s remarks to Der Spiegel.

“That clarification — released only after a call to the Iraqi government from American officials — did not say that Maliki does not support a timetable; it made vague reference to mistranslation, but did not refer to any specific error,” the memo read. “From the interview in question and from previous statements, we know where Maliki stands: He supports a timetable for responsible U.S. redeployment.”