Another one from MTP this morning, a day after the first fragile measure of political reconciliation passed the Iraqi parliament. Whom to thank? Not David Petraeus, whose claims of improved security and lowered sectarian tensions we were assured require “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Thank the Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton — who opposed the surge, who opposed funding for the surge, who even opposed a symbolic resolution defending Petraeus from the “Betray Us” smear. It took the looming prospect of withdrawal by a Democratic president, she says, to finally get the Iraqis in gear, neglecting the fact that the election of the Democratic Congress in 2006 was also supposed to get them in gear and never quite did. Thus do the stars align for Hillary: the failure of her own party plus the success of an operation she dismissed produce a credit-taking opportunity only the dumbest Clinton supporter could fall for. The fact is, troop levels are increasingly out of her hands and nobody knows it better than the Iraqis she cynically pretends to be influencing:
[T]he new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.
As far as the number of U.S. troops that would remain in Iraq under such a pact, the administration is considering changes that could also pre-empt anything the Democrats have in mind… [O]ne Pentagon contractor who is working on the long-term U.S. plans for Iraq says that the administration is considering new configurations of forces that could reduce troop levels to well under 100,000, perhaps to as few as 60,000, by the time the next president takes office.
The agreement’s set to be signed next July, in the thick of the campaign. McCain might be able to sell it but anyone else as nominee is going to reap the whirlwind of having to defend a new long-term commitment on the stump, especially if Bush does an end-around the Senate in signing it. A big drawdown to accompany it will sweeten the pot, certainly, but Bush is obviously willing to gamble the GOP’s chances next year on getting this done. A little “nuance” to bear in mind as you view the clip. Click the image to watch.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member