President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or timetable.
The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home. It also could complicate the presidential campaign arguments of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who have staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular war.
I don't think this is anywhere nearly as dramatic as the article makes out. A "general time horizon" sounds vague enough to allow Iraqi leaders to mollify domestic critics who worry that we won't leave when not needed and allow us to actually stay long enough to both nail down a battlefield victory and to help build an Iraqi democracy.
And if I may be so bold to point this out, there is no contradiction between talking to Iraqis about our forces leaving Iraq and refusing to talk to the Pelosi- and Reid-led Congress about the exact same topic. Quite simply, the difference is that Iraqis want to win the war and so have no reason to talk about a timetable as a means of losing the war. Look me in the eye and tell me Pelosi and Reid are committed to winning the war--or even vaguely interested in that result.
So what will the "time table" look like? Bush and Maliki set forth a general focus:
The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said.
So it looks like goals rather than strict dates to draw down. If an "aspirational goal" is met, then some troops will come home. If the aspirational goal is not met, we keep working with the troop level stable until the goal is met. It might be tough for a future president determined to retreat to insist that an aspirational goal is met when it is not.
Maliki's confidence from our recent winning record will take him only so far in negotiations. Yes, Maliki needs to silence critics at home and give supporters a reason to support the agreement. But Maliki needs a good agreement that keeps us fighting at his side. Does Maliki really think he can wait for the next administration to get a deal that will provide more security? That sounds awfully risky to me.
It would be foolish to have a strict timetable. I don't believe that the Iraqis are going to insist on something like that. But the wording will be vague enough to make it look that way.
