Good News For Iraq. Bad News For Dems?

Nice editorial in the Wall Street Journal today on the future of Iraq policy and the dilemma that the Dems may face if success continues:

On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi was asked on CNN whether she feared squandering the success of President Bush's "surge" in Iraq with a hasty withdrawal. "There haven't been gains, Wolf," the House Speaker told anchor Wolf Blitzer. "The gains have not produced the desired effect which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

Yesterday, the Iraqi Parliament passed a budget, approved an amnesty for thousands of detainees and enacted a crucial law on provincial powers. Sunni lawmaker Adnan al-Dulaimi called it "the greatest achievement possible for the Iraqi people."

We'll assume Ms. Pelosi isn't actually disappointed by the latest good Iraq news. Yet the political calendar in Washington, with its noisome demands for benchmarks and timetables, is increasingly out of step with the strategic calendar in Baghdad. Getting them into line will be the great challenge of the Bush Administration's final months in office.

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a step in that direction by announcing that there would be a pause in troop reductions in Iraq once the five additional "surge" brigades were withdrawn this summer. "I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," said Mr. Gates on a visit to Baghdad, endorsing the recommendation of General David Petraeus.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, will also soon begin negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government to establish the parameters for a long-term security relationship. In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, Mr. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted that the U.S. has no fewer than 115 such agreements with other nations, covering everything from rules of engagement to how troops will get their mail.

"Nothing to be negotiated will mandate that we continue combat missions," they wrote. "Nothing will set troop levels. Nothing will commit the United States to join Iraq in a war against another country or provide other such security commitments."

Such an agreement shouldn't be controversial, especially given that the government of Nouri al-Maliki doesn't plan to extend the U.N. resolutions that authorize the coalition's presence in Iraq beyond the end of this year. The next President will need an accord whatever he (or she) intends to do in Iraq. Yet both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying to make a campaign issue of this, demanding that any agreement be authorized by Congress. The Democratic rivals also seized on Mr. Gates's comments about a pause in U.S. troop reductions, with Mr. Obama warning of "war without end."

At this point in the Democratic primary season, even a declaration of surrender by al Qaeda in Iraq would probably be treated as further evidence of Bush Administration incompetence. Speaking of which, this week the Times of London published remarkable excerpts from letters by two al Qaeda chieftains in Iraq that were seized late last year in a U.S. military raid.

Continue reading.

It’ll be interesting to see if Obama or Hillary’s rhetoric on Iraq changes, or at least softens, once the general election begins. I’d say Hillary's probably would; she’s a bit more hawkish than Obama. However, the Senator from Illinois seems pretty gung-ho for getting out no matter what happens, which might hurt him if the security situation continues to improve and we get more political progress from the Iraqi parliament.