The alarming resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan makes it even more imperative for the United States to begin planning for a swift and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. For far too long President George W. Bush’s disastrous war of choice in Iraq has leached resources and top-level attention from the war of necessity in Afghanistan. A grim new statistic underscores just how badly things are going there: 46 American and allied forces died in Afghanistan in June, more than during any other month since the war began in 2001. For the second straight month, combat deaths in Afghanistan exceeded those for American-led forces in Iraq, where 31 troops died.
The recent decline in violence in Iraq is very welcome, but it has yet to be matched with essential political reforms. Instead of planning for a serious drawdown of American troops, the White House is using its self-proclaimed success as one more excuse for staying on. Mr. Bush’s successor will almost certainly inherit an Iraq with at least 130,000 American troops still fighting there.
Until now nearly all of the presidential debate has focused on whether and when a withdrawal should occur.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said he will stay on until “victory” is achieved, but he has not fully explained what that means or how it can be accomplished, much less how it can be accomplished while simultaneously routing militants in Afghanistan.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama was right when he said the United States must withdraw from Iraq so it can finish the fight in Afghanistan, but, after promising to immediately begin drawing down troops by one or two brigades a month, he is now giving himself wiggle room by suggesting he will let military commanders set the pace.
What is needed is a far more serious, public discussion by the two candidates about how they plan to meet their commitments and also ensure that Iraq’s chaos does not spin further out of control or spread even further over its borders.
Fortunately, two new reports--one by the centrist Center for a New American Security and the other by a liberal-leaning task force involving the Commonwealth Institute, some members of Congress and many academics--are asking those far more complicated questions. They have differences, especially on the timing of withdrawal, but they point the debate in the right direction. Most notably:
What support does Iraq need to ensure that provincial elections set for later this year--a crucial opportunity for disenfranchised Sunnis to play a larger role in government--and national elections in 2009 are as free and fair as possible?
What help does Iraq’s government need to resettle some 2 million internally displaced Iraqis and another 2 million who have fled to Syria and Jordan?
What can be done to promote long stalemated political reforms and encourage reconciliation? Should there be an internationally sponsored conference?
What can the United States do to try to persuade Iraq’s neighbors in Iran and Syria to promote rather than undermine Iraq’s stability and sovereignty?
Should the United States seek to keep a limited force behind for targeted counterterrorism operations or to deter genocide or aggressive outside meddling?
Would Washington have more influence--and a greater chance of enlisting help--if it completely withdrew or negotiated a slower drawdown with the Iraqis?
With two wars underway, the transition from President Bush to his successor will be riskier than any in recent memory. The presidential candidates must begin explaining, in detail, how they plan to handle both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They can start by answering the questions listed here.
