Common Ground On The Time Horizon?
“Surprising in his tenacity, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has insisted on making it clear the U.S. will be leaving -- and soon. Although they have hedged their own statements at times, Maliki and others in his government have made it clear they consider 2010 a realistic endpoint for the current U.S. role and presence in Iraq. ”
Almost overnight, the debate over the war in Iraq has taken a new direction. For the first time in years, it appears possible to achieve a working consensus between warring factions in both countries.
That would mean some form of reconciliation among Sunni, Shia and Kurds -- and among the various factions of each. In the U.S., consensus involves bringing together those who want American forces in Iraq indefinitely and those who never wanted them there in the first place.
It's hard to say which set of conflicts may prove the more implacable, ours or theirs.
For a long time, you could get agreement in this country only by saying the Iraq situation was a mess. Everybody knew that. But policymakers and critics and ordinary citizens would immediately divide over what to do about it. We've had years of stale debate and impasse as a result.
But in little more than a week, the unpredictable politics of Iraq have churned up a new reality. That is what is driving the new discussion of timelines, time frames, time horizons and other euphemisms. Parse the words anyway you want, the Iraqis are envisioning a world in the very near future with U.S. forces substantially reduced. They are promoting that vision.
If that sounds off-key with the themes sounded by President Bush, it is. So the White House has been working hard for days now to re-harmonize with the Baghdad regime.
If the new notes coming from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sound more like Barack Obama's music than that of John McCain, they are. So the McCain forces are trying to remind everyone it was their surge concept that made possible the new facts on the ground.
But we need to realize this is not primarily about the U.S. or our presidential election. It's about the Iraqis' effort to pull their own country together on a basis other than a Pax Americana.
The Iraqis, in search of a governing consensus, have become quite tough on certain elements of the Status of Forces Agreement now being negotiated with the U.S. (and needed to legitimize U.S. forces in the country after their U.N. mandate expires).
Surprising in his tenacity, Maliki has insisted on making it clear the U.S. will be leaving -- and soon. Although they have hedged their own statements at times, Maliki and others in his government have made it clear they consider 2010 a realistic endpoint for the current U.S. role and presence in Iraq.
This will strike many Americans, especially conservatives, as overly optimistic. It also seems disrespectful of President Bush, who has resisted any such specificity in talking about getting out. After all, Maliki's regime owes its existence to the steadfast support of the Bush administration. Don't they know that?
Of course they do. But they also know their future depends on someone else, and it's not the next U.S. president. Their chief concern is selling themselves to Iraqis. And to do that, to hold the various parties and factions together, the current crew in Baghdad needs NOT to be seen as the agents of America any longer than absolutely necessary.
As for the deep divisions on our side of the ocean, why shouldn't we be willing to let the success of the Iraqi regime make possible a lighter U.S. presence?
Was this new, happier scenario made possible by the surge? Fine. Let it be so. And let the surge, the success and the reconciliation free the U.S. government to pursue the rest of its rightful agenda, at home and abroad.
6:52 PM ET | 07-22-2008 | permalink
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.