Political junkies on all sides are obsessed these days with Senator Barack Obama's July 3 remarks on Iraq. Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination in large part because of a promise that, if elected, he would "end the war in 2009." More specifically, he pledged to immediately begin withdrawal of U.S. forces and remove all combat troops within 16 months of taking office, leaving behind only enough to counter terrorists and train Iraqis.
But on July 3 he sounded as though he might be backing away from that stance. He told reporters that his 16-month timetable "was always premised on making sure our troops are safe...and that Iraq is stable," and that he would "continue to refine" his proposals after consulting with military commanders on his forthcoming visit to Iraq. So strong was the reaction to those statements, to the effect that they suggested a policy change, that Obama called a second news conference later that day. He denied any change in policy, and said he had "not equivocated," on Iraq. Nor, he insisted, was he "searching for maneuvering room."
Should Obama get elected, what is now strictly a theoretical problem will become a very difficult practical one. One of the wisest commentaries on the issue a President Obama would face, and how he would react, was written more than a month ago by Thomas Powers in the New York Review of Books. Powers is a veteran Pulitzer-prize winning reporter and author who has spent decades covering national security and intelligence issues. His commentary below is taken from his review of half a dozen books on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was written on April 30, when Obama was still contesting Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and appeared in the May 29 issue of the Review:
Getting out of Iraq will require just as much resolution as it took to get in -- and the same kind of resolution: a willingness to ignore the consequences. The consequence hardest to ignore will be the growing power and influence of Iran, which Bush has described as one of the two great security threats to the US. Israel shares this view of Iran. No new president will want to run the risk of being thought soft on Iran. This is where the military error exacts a terrible price. A political conflict transformed into a military conflict requires a military resolution, and those, famously, come in two forms--victory or defeat. Getting out means admitting defeat.
Is it possible that the new president will have that kind of resolution? I think not; to my ear Clinton and Obama don't sound drained of hope or bright ideas, determined to cut losses and end the agony. Why should they? They're coming in fresh from the sidelines. Getting out, giving up, admitting defeat are not what we expect from the psychology of newly elected presidents who have just overcome all odds and battled through to personal victory. They've managed the impossible once; why not again? Planning for withdrawals might begin on Day One, but the plans will be hostage to events.
At first, perhaps, all runs smoothly. Then things begin to happen. The situation on the first day has altered by the tenth. Some faction of Iraqis joins or drops out of the fight. A troublesome law is passed, or left standing. A helicopter goes down with casualties in two digits. The Green Zone is hit by a new wave of rockets or mortars from Sadr City in Baghdad. The US Army protests that the rockets or mortars were provided by Iran. The new president warns Iran to stay out of the fight. The government in Tehran dismisses the warning. This is already a long-established pattern. Why should we expect it to change? So it goes. At an unmarked moment somewhere between the third and the sixth month a sea change occurs: Bush's war becomes the new president's war, and getting out means failure, means defeat, means rising opposition at home, means no second term. It's not hard to see where this is going.
We are committed in Afghanistan. We are not ready to leave Iraq. In both countries our friends are in trouble. The pride of American arms is at stake. The world is watching. To me the logic of events seems inescapable. Unless something quite unexpected happens, four years from now the presidential candidates will be arguing about two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one going into its ninth year, the other into its eleventh. The choice will be the one Americans hate most -- get out or fight on.
That's something to think about...and worry about.