When Accomplishing the Stated Mission is not “Victory.”

In recent weeks, Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has endorsed the same proposed timetable for withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq as the one being advanced by US Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Likewise, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki publicly endorsed the 16 Month timetable plan until a scorching communication from the White House led him to backtrack a bit from what appeared to be an endorsement of Obama. A number of high profile Veterans organizations, including veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have called for a timetable for withdrawal instead of the vague and indefinite proposals by Bush and McCain.

Adding to the growing list of opinion leaders that have endorsed a plan for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, a former Bush “puppet” has testified before Congress that a 16 month timetable for US withdrawal is appropriate. Ayad Allawi had served as a Bush Administration installed Prime Minister of Iraq from June 2004 to April 2005. His latest pronouncement, in light of his relationship with the Bush Administration, could most charitably be described as “biting the hand that fed him.” Yet even this Bush loyalist sees that a planned timetable for the reduction of US forces is necessary. Allawi stated that the "express wishes of the Iraqi people should take precedence" over any designs or intentions of the American government.

The key question is not why these leaders are endorsing the “Obama proposal” or whether they are, in fact, endorsing Obama. Barack Obama certainly was not the first leader to propose a phased withdrawal and redeployment of US combat forces. The key question would be why are so many leaders on board with a rational strategy for phased and orderly withdrawal of US troops, when the current President and the candidate elect of his party are standing in staunch opposition to the plan? The great majority of Iraqis are calling for US withdrawal. The international community supports withdrawal of US combat troops and the soldiers who have actually been on the ground in Iraq all see that it is time for the US to leave. What then is the rational or philosophical basis for insisting on the establishment of a permanent presence of US troops in Iraq?

If the stated purposes for our presence have been achieved, why do Bush and McCain insist that we must remain indefinitely? There seems to be an elusive definition of the “mission” that the US has in Iraq. McCain claims that it is imperative that the US press on to “victory” in Iraq. Never mind that the invasion of the country was a mistake based upon falsehoods and deception by the Bush Administration. However, the definition of “victory” also seems to be slippery. If, as McCain claims, the “surge” has worked and violence is down, then it would seem that victory has been achieved. If the Iraqi people and its representatives state that they are capable and ready to undertake their own internal security issues, has the mission not been accomplished? Why then should the US taxpayers continue to spend billions of dollars for the extended occupation of a country that no longer needs or desires the presence of US troops?

Exactly WHO and WHAT INTERESTS are Bush and McCain advancing? Clearly they are not representing the interests of the American people or the Iraqi people.