Administration overcomes its aversion to timetables

Administration overcomes its aversion to timetables

There was a day — actually more than one day — when President Bush vetoed funding legislation for the war in Iraq because the Democratic Congress attached timetables for the withdrawal of troops from the war zone. Even timetables that were labeled as nonbinding were unacceptable to the president.

The president wouldn’t even negotiate timetables — he virtually dared Congress to do what he knew it did not have the stomach for, cutting off funding for the war. And in the Senate, loyal Republicans backed the president, threatening filibusters to block funding measures that included timetables and had been passed by the House.

The administration’s position on timetables was driven by two arguments. One was that only the president had the constitutional authority to deploy or redeploy military forces. The other — and the one that struck more of a chord with the voters than any constitutional debate — was that setting timetables encouraged our enemies and ultimately prolonged the war. A standard image in that argument was one of al-Qaida, having been given a withdrawal date by the U.S. Congress, going into hiding until American troops withdrew and then re-emerging with a vengeance.

Anyone who hasn’t been paying attention, then, might be surprised by the provisions of a security agreement negotiated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Iraq government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

What’s the deal?

The deal calls for U.S. forces to be withdrawn from Iraq’s cities by next June and to leave the country by 2011.

The timetable adds only about six months onto the timetable suggested by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee for president. When Obama proposed it, partisan opponents accused him of being irresponsible and even unpatriotic. Democrats who proposed withdrawal timetables were more interested in defeat than victory, right-wing radio talkers alleged.

The administration’s line is that the success of the troop surge in Iraq has changed everything. There is no doubting that violence is down in Iraq and that Maliki’s government is more stable today than a year ago. And both of those developments are good news.

The bad news is that violence is escalating in Afghanistan, allied troop losses are at their highest level in years and the Taliban is in a resurgence. And, of course, developments in Pakistan will have an enormous impact on how the West will be able to fight terrorism and fundamentalism throughout the region.

And while the Bush-Maliki security agreement establishes targets for U.S. withdrawal and recognizes Iraq’s sovereignty, it’s not a treat — treaties must be ratified by Congress. And so the extent to which the next president recognizes it — whether that be Obama or Republican John McCain — will be decided by the next president. The most President Bush can claim is that he provided a road map to withdrawal. Events will decide whether the road map can be followed.