McCain Follows Obama in Embracing a 16-Month Withdrawal Timetable for Iraq

Wow. Just wow:

Think Progress: [I]n an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer today, McCain seemed to endorse the idea of a timetable. When asked if Maliki would “persist” in requesting a 16-month withdrawal timetable from Iraq, McCain responded, “He won’t. … I know him.” McCain then praised Maliki’s 16-month timetable:

BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?

McCAIN: He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

This is a very big switch for McCain: from stay in Iraq for 100 years to this...

Comments

[pgl]

Can you say flip-flop? McCain wants to be all things to all people. Not exactly leadership material!

[vtcodger]

Wow indeed. It is beginning to look like the "victor" in Iraq is going to turn out to be the only guy without a Kalashnikov, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In a better world, this entire fiasco would not have happened. But since it has, it would be nice if justice prevailed. A Nobel peace prize for al Sistani, al Sadr, and al Maliki. And a fair trial followed by life sentences for Bush, Cheney, and Blair.

[Slocum]

This is a very big switch for McCain: from stay in Iraq for 100 years to this...

Is it really? The point of McCain's '100 years' remark was that a long-term presence in Iraq would be no worse an idea than a long-term presence in Germany or Korea or Kuwait, for that matter. But obviously, such a presence needs to be mutually agreed upon by the U.S. and the host, and when the host government wants the U.S. out, the U.S. leaves (see Subic Bay). Or did McCain, at some point, say that the U.S. should stay in Iraq regardless of the position of the elected Iraqi government?

And keep in mind that Obama's position doesn't rule out a long-term presence either, given that he's never been at all specific about the size of the 'residual force' in Iraq or how long the 'residual force' would be there. If the residual force is 50K troops and they're still there at the end of Obama's second term--will he have kept or broken his promise of withdrawal?

My problem with Obama's position is that he still seems indifferent to success in Iraq. Al Queda may not have been much of a presence in Iraq before the invasion, but Al Queda chose to make Iraq the main front, and, as a result, is on track to suffer a humiliating defeat there -- defeated by a partnership of the hated U.S. and Al Queda's own former Sunni tribal allies (really -- what scenario could be worse for Al Queda than that?) The surge may have been a long-shot, but it worked. Why on earth would we want throw all that away now? As things are going, it will be possible to withdraw a large fraction of the U.S. forces in Iraq over the next couple of years, but why do that unconditionally according to an inflexible time-table, ignoring the security situation?

Success in Iraq matters no less than success in Afghanistan (and the former is a lot closer than the latter).