General Under Fire

The Age

Thursday April 10, 2008

Anne Davies

With no immediate end in sight for the Iraq war, the burden of a solution will fall to the next president of the United States. This week, the would-be presidents had a chance to sharpen their positions on the issue, writes Anne Davies.

AFTER weeks of being overshadowed by the economy, the war in Iraq came rushing back to the foreground of the 2008 US presidential race on Tuesday as General David Petraeus delivered his assessment that there could not be a timetable for further troop withdrawals beyond July.

After the assessment by Petraeus and his civilian counterpart, ambassador Ryan Crocker, before two congressional committees, the future of the war looks set to fall on the shoulders of the next president.

As a result there was as much interest in what the three presidential hopefuls - Republican John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - had to say as there was in the assessment of the war by the general.

In the often rowdy hearings General Petraeus told the lawmakers that there should be a 45-day "period of consolidation and evaluation" once the surge is completed in July."

This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit. This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable," Petraeus said.

This makes the question of how each candidate will handle the war on gaining office a concrete one, rather than hypothetical.

Republican nominee, John McCain, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, was the first candidate to air his views.

McCain has been a strong supporter of the surge strategy, but on Tuesday he fully backed the continuing effort, effectively tying his colours to President George Bush's mast."

We're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. Success - the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threats to its neighbours and contributes to the defeat of terrorists - this success is within reach," he said.

McCain called on Americans to reject the calls for "reckless and irresponsible" withdrawal of the troops when success was at hand. "I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of moral and political leadership," he said.

Clinton was the next to speak and used her time to demonstrate her ability to counter McCain's criticisms of withdrawal as irresponsible."

Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again, at such tremendous cost to our national security and to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States military," she said.

Demonstrating her ability to hone in on complex issues, she targeted ambassador Crocker's plans to use executive powers to sign a new agreement with the Iraqi Government to allow US troops to continue to remain in Iraq beyond December 2008."

Well, ambassador Crocker, it seems odd, I think, to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform ... if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement that the United States Congress would not," she said."

I currently have legislation requiring the Congress to have an opportunity to consider such an agreement before it is signed, and I would urge you to submit such an agreement to the Congress for full consideration. (Otherwise) this would mean that Congress will not have any scrutiny of the terms of future US engagement in Iraq, possibly for many years to come."

The real anticipation was to see how Obama, whose track record on foreign affairs is less established, performed.

At one stage the Democrat chairman, Senator Joe Biden, an Obama supporter, joked with a senator from Ohio that he would like him not to refer to the Illinois senator in his speech because it caused the anti-war protesters to cheer: "I can only imagine the headline in The Washington Post: 'Biden throws out people for cheering for Democratic candidate'."

Obama's performance was perhaps the most low-key, using his time to demonstrate his grasp of the detail while also delivering one of the best lines of the day."

In the parade of horribles that both of you have outlined should we leave too quickly, at the centre is al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Iran," he said, before quizzing them on their assessments on these two issues.

But his real punch came as he asked the general and the ambassador to define what exactly was their measure of success in Iraq. He had manoeuvred them into conceding that it was not realistic to expect an Iraq where al-Qaeda no longer existed; nor was it realistic to envisage an Iraq where Iran had no influence.

Both men squirmed as Obama pressed for them to define exactly what was realistic."

I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems - al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region - are a direct result of that original decision," Senator Obama said while acknowledging that the mess was not of their making, they were only trying to clean it up."

I believe that we are more likely to resolve it ... if we are applying increased pressure in a measured way. I think that increased pressure - and this is where we disagree - includes a timetable for withdrawal," he said.

Obama stressed he was not calling for a a total and premature removal of troops but a withdrawal that would force the Maliki Government to step up.

A clearly nervous ambassador Crocker sidestepped the question of what constitutes success. He refused to agree with Obama that a messy democracy with some violent outbreaks was sufficient.

It is a question McCain can expect to be repeatedly asked if Obama becomes the nominee. It will be a hard question for McCain to answer.

To set the bar too high is to commit to perhaps decades of heavy troop levels in Iraq. To set it too low will demolish the argument that the reason for the war is to make America safe from al-Qaeda.

If Obama is the Democrat nominee, as seems likely, he will face the problem of countering what is clearly McCain's greater experience in foreign relations. Obama can argue he made the right decision five years ago in opposing the unpopular war, but Americans will still be looking for a safe pair of hands on issues beyond Iraq.

Anne Davies is Washington correspondent.

'There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?' -- John McCain

'What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working?' -- Hillary Clinton

'If we were to have the status quo in Iraq right now, without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?' -- Barack Obama

© 2008 The Age

Back to News Index | Back to Home