Iraq and McCain

So far, the conventional wisdom has been that, as a campaign issue, Iraq is a wash for Obama and McCain. Many commentators have argued that, though the Iraq war is highly unpopular among the electorate, McCain's position on the war makes him look principled and his military background gives him important foreign policy experience. Americans are also somewhat torn over the war itself, due to fears that an American pullout could precipitate a civil war.

The ongoing negotiations over the Status of Forces agreement have dramatically changed Iraq as an election issue. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has demanded that any agreement between the United States and Iraq have a clearly stated withdrawal timetable. Obama has long stated that he is in favor of just this sort of timetable, but McCain has claimed that insurgents would merely lie low until the United States leaves, then return to terrorizing the country.

This argument made much more sense a year ago than it does now. Al Qaeda in Iraq is largely defeated across the country and the Mahdi Army seems to accepted the legitimacy of the current government in Iraq, if not the occupation that protects it. Iraq, the government and the people, want a sign that the United States is not there to stay. This is a fair request and it makes sense to honor it.

One must remember what our primary mission in Iraq is. It is not to protect the Iraqi people, though that is a necessary component. Our goal in Mesopotamia is and has been to leave behind a friendly, strong democracy. But democracy is messy and democratic allies cannot always be depended on to fall in line on every issue. There is a real belief that any government supported by an occupying force is destined to be a sycophantic marionette, with strings held in the Green Zone and in Washington. If Maliki's government is to wield any power and maintain the trust of the people it governs, it must dispel this belief.

Iraq holds all the cards in a negotiation with the United States. Maliki can credibly claim that he cannot present a Status of Forces agreement to the Iraqi people without a timetable for withdrawal. The Bush administration, conversely, has all the negotiating flexibility in the world. They can hardly threaten to pull out immediately as opposed to agreeing to pull out eventually. And they need the Status of Forces agreement to legally distinguish our current presence in Iraq from an aggressive occupation.

I do not understand why McCain has not used this opportunity to adjust his position on Iraq. He has said that "We will come home with honor and with victory," but America announcing that it will leave Iraq may be instrumental to that victory. If the Iraqi government asks us to go and we refuse, we would reignite the civil war and insurgency that the Surge helped avert. In McCain's own words, "it's obvious that we would have to leave" if we are asked to by the Iraqi government.

McCain should come out loudly in favor of bowing to Maliki's wishes for a set timetable. if he did so he would essentially force the issue on the Bush administration, because the Iraqi's would be guaranteed of getting a good deal from whoever wins in November, and could turn down any deal they did not like until the end of the year.

McCain then could brandish his foreign policy experience untainted by the occupation in Iraq, because he could declare it a resolved problem. He could focus on displaying his warrior's courage and Churchillian resolve on serious but politically unambiguous problems like Afghanistan and Pakistan. He could say that the success of the Surge, which was his baby as much as it was Petreus's, is what allowed for this policy adjustment. It would define him as strong yet flexible, displaying a visible change from the past eight years of "Stay the Course."

I just don't get why this has not already happened.