The big political news of the last week has been Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s embrace of Sen. Barack Obama’s position on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Sen. John McCain’s subsequent embrace of Maliki’s position on withdrawal. As Josh Marshall observes, “Sen. McCain has gone from predicting a decades long presence of American troops in Iraq and attacking any discussion of timetables for withdrawal to endorsing Maliki’s push for a 16 month timetable and tying himself in knots trying to explain why what Maliki’s endorsing is any different from Obama’s.”
On CNN on Friday, McCain insisted that his withdrawal plans are “conditions-based,” and suggested that Obama’s are not.
Nevermind that Obama’s withdrawal plans have always been contingent on conditions on the ground. He has said that he would be as careful getting out of Iraq as Bush was careless getting in. The sixteen month timetable has been Obama’s judgment of how long it would take to redeploy U.S. troops safely given conditions on the ground.
But what, exactly, are the conditions that matter to McCain? Journalists haven’t yet asked McCain that question.
My guess, based on McCain’s recent assertions that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war, is that McCain’s key condition is the appearance of victory. If sectarian violence increases, or if the Iraqi government starts to crack, look for McCain to halt the withdrawal even if U.S. troops could withdraw safely. If it takes 100 years to win this war, then that’s how long McCain would leave our troops there.
In the end, I don’t think that McCain’s recent embrace of a 16-month timetable changes much other than his rhetoric. There are still deep differences between McCain and Obama and a real choice for the American people.
Cross-posted from Facebook.
Leave a Reply