WurfWhile

No publicized screams of “FIND OUT WHO LEAKED THE MEMO” or “SLAM THE REPORTER” came with the leak of National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley’s November 8th memorandum on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and American efforts to establish control in Iraq. The memo was leaked by “an administration official” who was nice enough to let the New York Times transcribe it. I haven’t seen much critical about this in the blogs or press - most commentators seem to treat the memo at face value - but the lack of Bush Administration noise about the “leak” speaks volumes, and there are other reasons for thinking it’s a bogus leak.

Today we read in the newspapers that “Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq and King Abdullah II of Jordan abruptly backed out of a meeting with President Bush” yesterday in response to the memo leak. We also read that experts think the memo’s analysis is clueless [hat tip to TPM].

So, no real reaction from the White House to a memorandum leak about Iraq policy that causes the cancellation of a planned meeting between President George W. Bush, the Iraqi prime minister and the King of Jordan over a war that is one of the highest profile issues in America today. I read the leaked memo yesterday, and while I’m sure I’m missing a lot, here’s some of what I’m getting out of it:

First, the memo is dated November 8th, the day after the mid-term elections, which may be intended to communicate that the Bush Administration “gets” the election message rejecting its Iraq policy (or lack thereof) and has a plan (a full five-pager!) for improving things in Iraq.* This is important because the “audience” for this memo is domestic (the American press, policymakers and the public) and foreign (allies, Iraq and its neighbors). I’m guessing the memo is least concerned with the supposed audience of cabinet-level officials, except for possibly providing them with “talking points” on (potential) Administration policy.

Second, the memo seems intended to establish that the Bush Administration has bent backwards to help Iraq working with Iraqis (even offering to fund the Prime Minister and affiliated political groups) so when failure comes (as seems inevitable at this point), Bush can say he tried to do everything he could working with Iraq, and Iraq failed us. It clearly paints Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in less than a favorable light - readying him to take the blame.

Third, the policy prescriptions in the memo serve as a public “trial balloon” for the Administration - now without risking rejection by formally suggesting “Hadley’s” ideas, the Administration can hear what others (American policymakers including the “Baker Group” (aka Iraq Study Group), the press and other governments) think of them.

Fourth, the memo makes the argument for maintaining, and possibly increasing, American troops in Iraq.

Fifth, the memo leak Tuesday coupled with the “Baker Group” leak Wednesday (which we’re told will say we need to get the bulk of our troops out of Iraq soon - but won’t provide a timetable for enforcement) gives political cover for Bush resolve (if the president decides American troops won’t leave Iraq until he leaves the White House) or Bush retreat (if he decides it is politically necessary).

I suspect there’s a lot more to this “leak” - including how it plays with various factions in Iraq - I wish those that make foreign policy their expertise would train their eyes on it. I’d like to learn more.

Notes:

* I recognize that the timing is said to have involved Hadley returning from a trip to Iraq where he had a meeting with Maliki - but that meeting was October 30, according to the New York Times, and I suspect the writing of a post-election memo was intentional (or at least very convenient) - so any time after November 7th is fine for communicating that the Bush team “gets it” - the day after the election just makes it seem even more responsive.