Bush shouldn’t bind successor on Iraq

President Bush has basically left to his successor the difficult job of deciding when and how quickly to withdraw the bulk of U.S. troops from Iraq.

At the same time, his administration is pressing to complete a controversial agreement some critics fear would commit the U.S. to a long-term presence there, regardless of the November election result. The administration rejects that interpretation, contending the proposal would merely give future administrations the option of keeping troops there, if they wish.

The issue has arisen because a United Nations resolution authorizing U.S. troops to be in Iraq expires at the end of 2008.

The U.S. seems more eager to complete a follow-up agreement than the Iraqis, who have slowed the discussion by raising questions — including whether it’s time for Iraq to assume greater responsibility for its security.

To be sure, there are arguments on both sides of the substance of the proposed pact.

As The Washington Post noted, U.S. ties with Iraq help to counter Iranian efforts in the region. Nevertheless, this hardly seems like the kind of long-term decision a lame-duck administration should make, especially without congressional approval.

Congress excluded

Adding to the irony, the Iraqi parliament will have a say in whether the agreement goes through; the American Congress won’t.

The administration, while possibly open to some consultation with lawmakers, argues that formal action is not required since the proposed pact is like U.S. status-of-forces agreements with other countries where forces are stationed.

Yet there are significant differences. Unlike arrangements with such countries as Japan and South Korea, the 150,000 American troops in Iraq are deeply involved in combat to maintain security. And there are major domestic differences over how long to continue that role.

Indeed, the future of U.S. troops in Iraq hinges on the November vote to elect Mr. Bush’s successor, though many analysts believe the gap between Barack Obama’s plan for a phased withdrawal and John McCain’s opposition to any pullout schedule may be narrower than their rhetoric suggests.

The U.S. is not the only place where there is split opinion over the future of its military role. It has become a major issue in Iraqi elections expected this fall, with some government critics exaggerating the extent to which an agreement would ensure a long-term U.S. presence.

But the basic disagreement is over such details as the degree to which the Americans would need Iraqi approval for future military operations.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says the U.S. wants access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors. The Bush administration has retreated on some of that.

The debate is further complicated by the growing evidence that things in Iraq, while still not ideal, are getting better, in part due to the increased military operations known as the “surge.” But that progress has its limits.

In a recent editorial commending the improvement and warning against “a precipitate withdrawal,” The Economist also said the Iraqi invasion it initially backed and subsequent occupation remains “a debacle.”

Fractious government

Iraq’s government, it added, “is still fractious and in many places corrupt” and that life for Iraqis lacks many necessities and remains “under threat of violent death,” as Tuesday’s car bombing in Baghdad showed.

The editorial also said continued improvement might make Obama’s phased withdrawal plan “more feasible.” Even some administration backers think the time may be near that Iraq can survive a major troop reduction.

In the meantime, however, it might be better for all concerned to negotiate a short-term extension of the U.N. authority and let the next U.S. administration work out a more permanent arrangement.

After all, either Barack Obama or John McCain will determine the U.S. end game in Iraq, not Bush.

X Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services..