Kerry's Choice

The John Kerry of "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake" returned today, two years late, with a sensible call for deadlines in Iraq. He's right, it's the only thing Iraqis have responded to thus far.

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines — a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

This is territory Future President Feingold has trod upon since last August (and he immediately endorsed the Kerry plan today). Essentially the Secretary of State and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw are pushing the Iraqis to form a unity government right now already, so Kerry's idea adds the force of a deadline. It provides far more accountability and asks for far more from the Iraqis than we're currently doing.

This is the least worst option in Iraq. In my view the country is now destined to end poorly. This course is inexorable: militias are arming up, several hundreds die in the streets execution-style with each passing month, and our Defense Secretary has already vowed to stay out of any civil war. Then why not redeploy with quick-strike capability, as Kerry chooses? Why not save the lives of our troops, remove the terrorist PR bonanza of an American occupying force in the Middle East, and bring the whole world to the table for an acceptable political solution? I don't know how successful it could be in the current climate, but it couldn't possibly be worse than staying the course and muddling through a failed mission.

It's been a long time coming for Kerry to be this forthright on Iraq. Clear language like this could have won the election in 2004. His message on Iraq was so muddled, so middle of the road, that it was impossible for swing voters to hang their hat on that message and change leadership in the middle of the war. Kerry is obviously angling for 2008, but I also think he's seen how events on the ground have changed, and how dire the situation in the country is. This is a welcome shift, a decision to bringing the troops home that will only make him unpopular in the hard-right circles that would never vote for him anyway. This is where the country is right now, and at this point we need leaders that reflect the will of the country.