Tough choices ahead on Iraq
A Times EditorialPublished January 26, 2008
The United States has been at war in Iraq longer than it was involved in World War II. Yet there is no clear picture from either party's leading candidates how the next president would end the war on terms that protect American interests. The debate so far has largely sidestepped the inevitable, ugly choices ahead. Democrats want to rehash President Bush's rush to invade Iraq and scrub clean their own party's fingerprints on going to war. Republicans are warning that withdrawal could lead to another Vietnam. The candidates need to come to terms with the realities in Iraq, lay out their conditions for leaving and explain how the United States will work from there to counter Islamist extremism.
Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are promising to withdraw the troops, but their positions have moderated recently and should come with an asterisk. The contours of their withdrawal plans are not entirely clear. Both Clinton and Obama say they would keep a "quick-reaction" force in the region but refuse to say if all U.S. forces would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term as president.
Clinton would keep special forces in Iraq to hunt down al-Qaida, and she would consider leaving forces in the north to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority. Obama would leave a "residual" force to train the Iraqi military and battle al-Qaida. Both he and Clinton resist deadlines and insist that withdrawals will have to be done carefully and responsibly.
Among Republicans, John McCain is the strongest advocate for maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq. He says "we can succeed" and warns that an American withdrawal would invite Islamist radicals to exploit the chaos that would follow. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney hew to McCain's position, speaking in broad terms about the danger of "walking away." McCain, at least, acknowledges the obstacles and has a sense of the fallout that could follow either a hasty withdrawal or the Iraqi government's collapse - from all-out Iraqi civil war to a political environment that provides a new sanctuary for terrorists and expands Iran's influence in the region.
The Democrats are right in insisting that Iraq's problems are political and will not be solved by U.S. military might. And McCain is right in saying Americans cannot wish away the war. While the U.S. troop surge has produced some security gains and lowered the level of violence, it has not moved Iraq toward national reconciliation - the main purpose of the surge. Iraq's defense minister said recently his nation would need American help with domestic security until 2012 and could not defend its borders until at least 2018.
Fear of a recession has replaced the war as the top concern of American voters, much to the relief of the candidates who would rather talk about the economy than Iraq. But voters should not let them off that easily.
After nearly five years of war, with little progress on the major political issues, the time is long passed for a U.S. disengagement from Iraq and for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. But withdrawing U.S. troops has enormous implications, both for Iraq, the region and the long-term security interests of America and its allies. It must be done right and as quickly as possible, which is no easy task.
The next commander in chief will confront a range of difficult questions, among them: Under what circumstances, if any, would a Democratic president consider delaying a troop withdrawal? What would be the mission of a residual U.S. force? After a withdrawal, would the United States intervene militarily to prevent genocide? What leverage exists after a U.S. withdrawal to move warring ethnic groups to the bargaining table? What would become of the thousands of Iraqis who helped the American war effort as translators and drivers? Will the next president maintain U.S. bases in Iraq after a withdrawal, and for how long and for what purpose?
The candidates all pin Iraq's reconstruction on an outbreak of regional goodwill. But what signs do they see - none exist now - that Iraq's neighbors are interested in mopping up after America's debacle? Iraq is the central foreign policy issue of the 2008 campaign, and the voters can't hear too much from the candidates on how they plan to end it or extend it.