Responsibility for retreat

Steve Huntley:

Would a President Hillary Clinton, as the first woman commander in chief, or a President Barack Obama, as the first African-American chief executive, want to begin work in the White House by ordering an American army to retreat from the field of battle?

That doesn't exactly sound like the way you'd want to start a historic presidency.

Yet, such a dilemma for a new Democratic president should not be considered out of the realm of possibility. Clinton and Obama regularly say that if President Bush doesn't end the Iraq war, they would -- first thing -- if elected to the White House. That promise usually comes in the context of a new proposal to begin a steep pullout of troops while Bush is still in office. But what happens should Bush stubbornly stay the course, and one of them has to make good on that promise?

I've got no idea where the military or political situation in Iraq will be six months from now, much less in 2009 when the next president takes over. Only a couple of months ago, I shared the prevailing pessimism that the military surge would fail. Now you can argue for hours about exactly how much progress has been achieved on Gen. David Petraeus' watch, but it takes, well, a willing suspension of disbelief to say that nothing good has occurred.

Suppose more of these kinds of agonizingly slow, incremental improvements continue through the end of 2008 so that Bush can hold firm on his strategy for Iraq. What's more, in his speech Thursday night, Bush committed the United States to Iraq beyond his presidency.

So upon assuming office, Clinton or Obama may indeed be confronted with a continuing major U.S. presence in Iraq. The new president then might find the rhetoric advocating a steep troop withdrawal that was so appealing while electioneering is in conflict with the responsibilities of office and her or his own historic perspective.

...

He goes on to say the Democrats could cut off funds for the troops which would force a retreat before 2009. The problem with that strategy is that they would get tagged with the resulting debacle. What they are trying to do now is get Bush to accept responsibility for the debacle they desire. Ne, nor the Republicans are going to accept a defeat while they think a victory is still likely. The military is saying that it is still an achievable goal, For the Democrats it is a goal they do not want to see achieved. Our victory in Iraq would discredit them and their judgment as much as it would discredit al Qaeda.