Obama and Ike: Timing the End of a War

Whether or not he is responding to John McCain's goading, Barack Obama's statement today that he is "interested in" going to Iraq before November recalls Dwight Eisenhower's campaign promise in 1952 to go to Korea and do something about ending the war there.

American voters then were weary of protracted fighting far from home as they are now. By his promise, Ike was underscoring his credentials as the man who won World War II and, soon after he was sworn in, made the trip--largely ceremonial--and months later a truce was signed.

Obama is on shakier ground in proposing to signify the end of US support for the war in Iraq and align himself with Prime Minister al-Maliki's desire for withdrawal of our troops.

He should consider making that trip after he takes over the White House, as Eisenhower did, to avoid Republican campaign attacks that he is urging Iraqis to "surrender" to insurgents and extremists and that he is undermining and endangering American troops.

Those charges won't be true but, in ending a war as all other life-and-death situations, timing is crucial.

Iraq Farewell Tour

Today, with the next President among the questioners, the stars of the Iraq spectacle come to Capitol Hill for their final performance of the Bush era.

Knowing that, unless McCain walks on water in November, the time for an honest reckoning is here, how will David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker face the chasm between Bush intransigence and an Obama (or Clinton) mandate to bring down the curtain?

"Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous," Gen. David Petraeus told Congress last September. "The events of the past six months underscore that point."

But the time for adlibbing is gone, and the two maestros of the Maliki show are going to have to explain the recent misadventure in Basra--the botched offensive against the militias, the mass desertions in the Iraqi forces and the intervention of Iran in temporarily reining in al-Sadr.

Having bought off Sunnis in Anbar, how much will it take to pay off Shiites in Basra, and what are the chances they will stay bought?

The Republicans up for reelection are hearing voters' footsteps. At a hearing last week, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman asked, "How do we get out of this mess?" A colleague, who preferred anonymity, added "We can't just say we're coasting through and waiting for the next president."

After his triumphant tour of past glories, John McCain is still in some imaginary realm, expressing support for the Basra attack but, on Fox News, suggesting that "al-Maliki should have waited until fighting subsided in Mosul.

“Look, I didn’t particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively.”

As the American death toll starts rising again, McCain won't be asking any tough questions today, but the Democrats who expect to take over the White House and expand their control of Congress next year should be insisting on straight answers now.

Will Bush's Victory Lap Backfire?

During his six-hour stay in a well-fortified air field in Anbar, the President may well have exacerbated sectarian tension in a way that will produce what Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called “squirting” of attacks to Shiite areas of Iraq.

"We had a good frank discussion," Bush said after his meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and top leaders today, which translates as pressure to make progress in coming to terms with Sunnis in Iraq’s central government.

At the same time, the President promised more aid to Sunni tribal leaders who have only recently turned against car-bombing insurgents from Saudi Arabia for their own reasons, certainly not out of friendship for the U. S.

But as always, Bush may be out of his depth in the quagmire of sectarian hatred. “Mr. Maliki,” the New York Times reported, “has been deeply worried about the outreach to Sunni tribes, which has included American support for setting up armed neighborhood watch groups in Anbar and other Sunni areas.”

A political scientist funded by the Defense Department, Robert Pape, who has studied suicide attacks over the past 25 years, now predicts Shiite action against Americans soon. "We're heading toward the cocktail of conditions that favor suicide terrorism from the Shia," he says.

Pape points out that our troop buildup in Iraq, which has begun to target Shiite groups such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army as well as Sunni insurgents, will cause increasing numbers of Shiites to see Americans the way many Sunnis do--as occupiers, rather than liberators.

In Iraq, the choices always seem to involve frying pans and fires.

Role Reversal in Iraq

Today’s New York Times reports a “closed-door meeting” that its reporter was allowed to put on the record:

“In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.

“Iraq’s Shiite dominated-government, Admiral Fallon added in the meeting, has consolidated power and should have the confidence to reach out to its opponents. ‘You have the power,’ Admiral Fallon said. ‘You should take the initiative.’”

Ryan C. Crocker, the American Ambassador to Iraq, was also present, but while the Admiral, our top Commander in the Middle East, was offering political counsel, there is no indication that the Ambassador was advising al-Maliki on military matters.

The Iraqis must be getting a weird impression of how democracy, American style, is supposed to work.