Op-Ed: Obama and Iraqi Foreign Minister Have Different Memories Of Conversation

Interesting how two people can have a conversation, yet they will both remember it differently. That is the situation that Barack Obama and Hoshyar Zebari, who is the Iraqi Foreign Minister, found themselves in recently.

At a press availability in Michigan, Jake Tapper, from ABC, followed up on the conversation between Barack Obama and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, and asked "if Zebari had expressed any concern to him that his plans to withdrawal U.S. troops as president would undo any security advances", and Obama's answer was very clear. Obama responded with, "No, he did not express that. He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress. I think that he expressed what President Maliki has expressed as well, which is that the Iraqis are obviously concerned about their sovereignty and are not seeking a long term occupation by the U.S. And so my sense is that we should be able to execute a withdrawal and set a timeframe - a timetable that continues to allow US forces to support Iraqi forces in going after terrorists, that continues to train the Iraqi police and military as long as we're not training militias that are turning on each other. Obama was very clear that Zebari did not express any concern over Obama,s Iraq plans, which as stated on his site, states:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

It seems as if Zebari has a different recollection of that conversation though as reported by The Washington Post, Zebari told the editors and reporters that he met with on Tuesday, that he found "Mr. Obama's proposal worrying". Zebari recalls the conversation between the two men a little differently saying that he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq was not an island", saying that meant that an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. He also says that he told Obama, "We have a deadly enemy. When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Zebari says he was very clear to Obama, stating, "Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." Then he claims that Obama made him some assurances:

Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."

This naturally brings up a few questions. First, is this an honest miscommunication and if so, who is describing the discussion accurately and who is confused? Second, if this isn't simply a communication difficulty issue, then is either of these men deliberately misrepresenting the conversation? Third, did Obama admit that any decisions made about Iraq would be determined by conditions on the ground and would not endanger the gains, achievements, stability and security of Iraq and would be done in after consulting with military commanders and Iraqi officials? Hasn't Obama called that plan a "failed policy" and doesn't the quote from his site directly contradict those words? Last, but not least, if someone is deliberately misrepresenting the discussion, who would have the most to gain by doing so? One has to wonder if the conversation was recorded because a simple audio and/or transcript would answer all the above questions quite easily.