by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 18, 2008
All Rights Reserved.

hrowing GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for a loop, President George W. Bush showed signs of acquiescing to Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki who seeks an unequivocal exit strategy for U.S. troops. With violence down and Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani calling for the U.S. to get out, al-Maliki has become more assertive insisting on a date for U.S. withdrawal. White House and Pentagon officials have been busy trying to negotiate a new security arrangement set to expire Dec. 31. While Bush always said the U.S. would leave if Iraqis wanted the troops out, he's hedged his position, insisting on no “arbitrary” deadline. McCain has followed Bush's path, blasting Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) for promising to withdraw combat forces within 16 months of taking office, a plan McCain calls “surrender.”

      Bush's new openness to consider a possible exit strategy presents problems for McCain going forward. “Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded . . . if we had followed Sen. Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos. American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized,” said McCain desperate for some traction. When former Centom commander Gen. George Casey and Iraq commander Gen. John P. Abizaid opposed the surge in late 2006, it was precisely because of more casualties. While casualties are down as of late, the troop surge produced dramatically higher U.S. casualties for the first seven months of 2007. It's pure conjecture for McCain to conclude, without the surge, that the U.S. would sustain higher casualties and regional instability.

      McCain criticized Barack for adhering to a policy of withdrawing U.S. forces without discussing the findings with Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. That's the exact same argument given by Bush to justify continued U.S. presence. Bush and McCain know that Gen. Petraeus is not the commander-in-chief and does not set U.S. foreign policy. When Bush decided to launch Cruise missiles March 20, 2003, he didn't initiate the war on advice from U.S. generals. Instead of crafting a responsible exit strategy, Bush insisted he listens to his battlefield generals. No general should be dictating to the commander-in-chief the necessity of protecting U.S. national security. Gen. Petraeus may have an opinion about violence in Baghdad but he's not responsible for weighing the war's economic and political ramifications. Only the commander-in-chief, independent of his generals on the ground, can make that decision.

      Barack's position has been consistent before, during and after the primaries: He believes the war was ill-conceived from the get-go, lacking compelling national security requirements. Unlike McCain, he believes the war in Iraq weakens U.S. national security by diverting attention away from the war in Afghanistan and the fight against the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and now McCain argue that we're fighting the perpetrators of 9/11 in Iraq. There's not one shred of evidence that any loosely tied al-Qaidia fighter in Iraq had anything to do with Sept. 11. All indications point that residual al-Qaida and Taliban fighters currently finding safe haven in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Progress in Iraq stems not only from the surge but from Iraqis stepping up and taking more responsibility for their own security.

      McCain would like to take credit for beefing up U.S. forces. While he supported a troop increase, he's not responsible for the Iraqis getting the message that U.S. would pull the plug unless they took security more seriously. By Dec. 2006, the country expressed its collective frustration punishing Republicans at the polls in November—handing Congress back to Democrats. It was the threat of pulling U.S. troops that woke up the Iraqi government to the very real possibility of a U.S. troop withdrawal. Unlike Bush and McCain who insists on heeding Gen. Petraeus, Barack sees the necessity of an orderly but certain exit strategy. Whether or not there's less violence, U.S. troops continue to die in Iraq. According to Nobel-prize winning Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Iraq War has caused catastrophic damage to the U.S. economy.

      In case Bush and McCain haven't noticed, the Iraqi president, parliament and the people want the U.S. out of Iraq. No one knows for sure whether the Iraqis can manage their own destiny without U.S. forces. What is known, however, is that the U.S. has paid a heavy price without much reward. Barack's plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces within 16 months of taking office is entirely consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi government. If, after seven years, the Iraqi government can't prevent a bloody civil war or more insurgent attacks then it's not the responsibility of the U.S. military. Keeping U.S. troops in Iraq only delays the day of reckoning for the Iraqi government: Taking full responsibility in terms of blood and treasure for their own sovereignty. No amount of U.S. lives and money can guarantee Iraq's success. An exit strategy is the only way to protect the military and save the economy.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.