The Next President and Iraq

The standard rejoinder among Democrats, including the candidates, is that despite Iraq's increasing safety there are few signs of political reconciliation. In response to the critique, Bret Stephens observes in the Wall Street Journal:

Have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with nothing worse to overcome than their Republican opposition, done better in their first year in the majority than Mr. Maliki, who must run a government besieged by al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias?

This is an important point. Legislative impotence and political standoffs are common features of democracy - whether it's practiced in Washington D.C. or a former dictatorship.

And we - not to mention the Iraqi people - still in very big trouble if that country goes downhill. The lessons of precipitous withdrawal after war are scattered all over the 20th century, for anyone bothered to learn them.

And furthermore, by nearly unanimous agreement, the surge has shown success. It would have been much easier to simply pull out the troops before, when the violence level was much higher - since any resulting uptick in bloody chaos could have been written off as more of the same. Now whoever initiates a troop withdrawal will own the consequences, especially if the level of slaughter begins to rise.

The irony is that Hillary is alone among Democrats in making the grown-up argument, that you can't simply pack up and leave without regard to the consequences. And after George W. Bush leaves office Iraq will still be our problem, and it will be the responsibility of the next president to make sure things don't get worse - and if possible, continue to improve.