Iraq still dominates US election

Iraq still dominates US election

July 18, 2008: The United States military formally handed security control of Qadisiya province to the Iraqi armed forces. Qadisiya is the 10th of Iraq's 18 provinces to be returned to Iraqi control in this way. Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said he hoped that all 18 provinces would be formally under Iraqi control by the end of this year. Also on Wednesday, the US military said a fifth combat brigade - the last of the so-called "surge" troops - would be out of Iraq by the end of the week. Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there could be more troop withdrawals in the autumn. And, on Wednesday, a bomb exploded in Tal Afar. It was a car bomb, apparently, and it killed 15 people and injured 90. Uncertainty One day in a long, long war. And a day on which - like most days in Iraq - events conspire to muddy one's perceptions of what is taking place. This is a country where every descriptive statement is orbited by caveats, like a planet by its moons. This uncertainty surrounding the true direction of events in Iraq is reflected in America's presidential campaign. Rivals Barack Obama and John McCain appear to have sharply divided positions on whether the war in Iraq can be "won", and whether such a victory is relevant to America's broad security interests.

Their positions on Iraq - and their fitness to be a wartime president - are unquestionably central to the voters' views of them. Republican John McCain, speaking on Tuesday, said: "The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next president will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemy's on the run and our soldiers are beginning to come home." His strategic goal, he has said, is "an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighbourhood". Mr McCain has alluded to an objective of bringing home "most" troops by the year 2013. But he studiously resists discussing the specifics of how the US entanglement in Iraq will be brought to an end, arguing events should determine a future president's decisions. Senator McCain is clear, in his lack of clarity. And many military insiders - and many American voters - sympathise with that approach. "He understands command," said one grizzled veteran to me at a McCain rally. "You don't signal your intentions in war." Extension of Bush? An ABC/Washington Post poll this week found that 72% of respondents believed that Mr McCain would make a good commander-in-chief. But he labours under the perception that his policy is merely an extension of President George W Bush's - and one which leaves America's bloody, costly commitment to Iraq open-ended. On Iraq, specifically, the poll's respondents appeared less confident in Mr McCain; only 47% said they trusted him to manage the war over Senator Obama. Mr Obama, by contrast, has deftly ridden popular disillusion with the Iraq war. The Democrat has presented himself as the candidate who will end a war, he said on Tuesday, in which Americans have "spent a trillion dollars, alienated allies, and neglected emerging threats". Mr Obama's grand plan for Iraq: bring combat brigades out, one or two a month, in close consultation with the generals, all the while assuring Iraqis that the US has no designs on maintaining permanent bases in Iraq. But there is fine print. Leave behind, says Mr Obama, "a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's security forces". What does that mean? One could interpret those words to mean that Mr Obama plans to leave in Iraq:

*Special Forces units plus lift and logistics and intelligence sufficient to facilitate a counter-terrorist mission; Force protection, which means combat troops; *Trainers and advisors to be embedded throughout the Iraqi armed forces; and, most intriguingly, "support" for the Iraqi security forces, a catch-all term which could include air cover, fire support, intelligence and surveillance, logistics - a whole host of military tasks which would assist the Iraqis. In short, the senator from Illinois, even as he campaigns on a platform of "ending the war", appears to be leaving himself considerable room for manoeuvre. Inflexible? Some military insiders are sceptical of Mr Obama's "timetable" for withdrawal. Retired Gen Jack Keane - who has advised the military and the Bush administration on tactics in Iraq - told me he thought it was the "wrong strategy". "It's so focused on disengagement," he said. "It would seem to me the strategy should be about a stable government in Iraq. And we're on the cusp of achieving that." Mr Obama is now locked into his unnecessary war/timetable-for-withdrawal platform. But as violence falls and troops come home, events in Iraq appear to be developing somewhat favourably for the US military and the Iraqi government. There is a danger for Mr Obama that his platform will start to look inflexible. Of course, if Mr Obama were to change his position on Iraq, he would be a "flip-flopper". The ABC/Washington post poll found that 48% of respondents believed Mr Obama would make an effective commander-in-chief. But almost the same number - 45% - trusted him to manage the Iraq war better than Mr McCain. Neither candidate has won this argument yet. And a coda from one of the most incisive commentators on American security, the journalist Thomas Powers. In the New York Review of Books, Mr Powers wrote recently that the next president's intentions on Iraq will be overtaken by events. "Things begin to happen," he writes. Bombs, politics, the lack of clarity mean that "the situation on the first day has altered by the tenth". His bleak prediction: "So it goes. At an unmarked moment somewhere between the third and the sixth month a sea change occurs: Bush's war becomes the new president's war, and getting out means failure, means defeat, means rising opposition at home, means no second term. It's not hard to see where this is going."

WHERE THE CANDIDATES STAND Barack Obama Wants to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months Opposes permanent US presence Would retain "a residual force to perform specific missions" John McCain Believes the 'surge' has succeeded Would aim to bring "most" troops home by 2013 In favour of permanent US bases in Iraq