Next president faces limited options in Iraq

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/8/8 | Carolyn Lochhead

[SmithL]

Washington -- In high-profile appearances before Congress today, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will cite progress in Iraq and urge a pause in troop withdrawals. But in little-noticed testimony last week, top military and diplomatic experts painted a vivid picture of how tight a bind the United States now finds itself in, how precarious is the position of U.S. soldiers and how difficult are the decisions the next president will face.

Petraeus is widely applauded for rescuing U.S. policy in Iraq from catastrophe last year. Yet stalemates in Iraq and in Washington leave an unspoken objective: Keep a lid on the violence through the U.S. election.

If that can be achieved, the next president's options are more limited than implied by the debate between Republican Sen. John McCain, who wants to continue the current course to victory, and Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who promise to withdraw at least a combat brigade a month.

The strain on U.S. ground forces is near a breaking point, Pentagon officials warn, which would present a President McCain with excruciating trade-offs between preserving order in Iraq and the military he cherishes. Much as presumptive GOP nominee McCain talks about victory versus defeat, there is universal agreement that current troop levels are unsustainable.

But a President Obama or a President Clinton would face at best a calculated guess about what would happen as U.S. troops leave: Would the retreat open space for Iraqis to reconcile and allow the Iraqi army to fill the breach, or would Americans find themselves in a dangerous race for the border?

Tipping point

And where is that tipping point? Is it 120,000 U.S. troops, or 100,000 or 50,000? Would they find themselves fighting down 400 miles of hostile terrain with refugees behind them, battling...

[goldstategop]

We're not going to be pulling out of Iraq in the foreseeable future no matter who is President. But the nature of our commitment there might change.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[dragnet2]

Why don’t we just plant our flag there and be done with it?

[Disturbin]

Maybe someone other than Jorge can properly motivate the Iraqis into getting their act together.

[Eurale]

The writer is simply moving the goal posts so Yo’Bama and hitlery won’t be held to their words (accountable) if either is elected.

[Piquaboy]

I think there are a lot of us out here that thinks he is a Muslim.

[Red6]

I don’t know.

With Hillary that is a true statement (IMHO), she’ll blame Bush, say her hands are tied; bla bla bla, but she’ll stay the course in Iraq. She’ll launch a PR campaign to give it a new face and she have some token initiatives she can put her name on to show she did something…….

But...... Obama is scary. He can cut and run without appearing to have flipped on the issue because he came in after the fact and took the popularist view at the time. He’s so far left and naive enough to where he might be willing to pull the plug on Iraq. Those who back him are from the far left fringes largely and Iraq is a cornerstone of his platform. Backpedal on that issue and it would crush him politically. I don’t think he’s going to be able to turn course once in office; he’ll have to deliver the goods in order to survive and with the Congress looking the way it is, I can imagine that some crazy $hit could happen.

What’s your analysis?