Bush sets a timescale for soldiers' return. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
What Iraq did for Obama
Iraq’s cabinet approved a U.S. status of forces agreement (SOFA) under which U.S. forces will be out of cities and towns by next summer, said Kevin Drum in Mother Jones online, and out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The Iraqi Parliament will probably ratify the deal fairly quickly. This is good for Iraq, good for President Bush—Barack Obama would have negotiated a quicker withdrawal—and good for Obama, as it makes withdrawal “into a bipartisan agreement.”
If Obama does benefit, said Paul Mirengoff in Power Line, it’ll be “thanks to the policies McCain insisted upon, Bush implemented, and Obama opposed.” Obama could still mess it up by withdrawing all troops in 16 months, as he has pledged, rather than as “the situation on the ground” dictates. But “if Obama has any sense, and I think he does,” he won’t do that.
This is “great news for Obama” regardless of what happens, said Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic online. When U.S. troops leave, expect “chaos and mass murder.” But it was Iraq that insisted that this “fixed timetable be set in stone,” so their “civil war” will be their “responsibility and Bush’s ultimate legacy in Iraq.” Obama will be blameless, and “he will focus on the economy. Genius.”
The U.S. has too much to lose if Iraq falls into chaos, said Abe Greenwald in Commentary online. And “as long as President Obama doesn’t commit foreign policy suicide” by pulling out too soon—no matter how hard “disgruntled liberals may rail him” for staying the course—he could leave Iraq better than we found it.
Comment on this article
Recent comments | 3 total
We won the Iraq War years ago so there is no valid reason to stay, especially when the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. All of the objectives for which we initially agreed to invade Iraq were either accomplished or turned out to be false, so there is no way to "lose the war" if we leave Iraq today. The war has been over for years, even if that has not been declared. Almost all of the violence that has happened there for about four years now has been Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, and much of the renewed violence that is happening now is due to our continued presence. We aren't the ones who had a lot to do with the relative calm that Iraq has enjoyed over the last year, either. It was mostly caused by the Iraqis themselves reducing their attacks on each other for various reasons. Iraq probably won't end up the way we want it to no matter how long we stay. The people who live there have their own desires and their own agenda, and what the people of Iraq want is what will determine Iraq's future. Yes, there will probably be bloodshed and a lot of problems, but those facts were among the many good reasons that were given for not invading Iraq in the first place. Since we can't turn back the hands of time, we need to figure out better ways of handling the situation than leaving our troops in harm's way and spending $10 billion each week on Iraq while our own nation crumbles around us. When you go with a bad policy, you are oftentimes only left with bad options.
digg del.icio.us stumbleUpon newsvine reddit furl