Peace and politics favoring withdrawal

Five long years after the U.S. enterprise in Iraq began, politics might finally force what fighting hasn't been able to find: a way out for American soldiers, at least some.

An aggressive American military effort, a truce with Muqtada al-Sadr, along with gains by the Iraqi military, have brought an undeniable and welcome peace to Baghdad and other cities.

Just how durable that peace might be remains uncertain, but political realities in both Iraq and in America have created the best moment yet to begin unwinding U.S. involvement.

In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said this week that he might be ready to establish a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, an idea quickly rejected by the White House. Even so, it was the first time al-Maliki has said such a thing, and he does lead a nation that Washington takes pains to describe as "sovereign."

If the security situation doesn't necessarily argue for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, politics undeniably does. It's a popular idea among the Shiite majority, and al-Maliki's embrace will steal the paramount issue from al-Sadr, his main opponent in this fall's provincial elections.

In America, the politics are not that much different.

The loss of thousands of American fighters, along with the feckless intransigence of the Pentagon, has made this conflict massively unpopular, an anchor around the neck of any pro-war politician, no matter how well things seem to be going now.

If Democrat Barack Obama wins the presidential election, it will be largely because he has promised to begin withdrawing American troops, and because Republican John McCain and the White House have refused to rule out a multi-generational commitment to the cause.

A reduction of U.S. involvement - a real accomplishment of the mission begun in 2003 - would rob Obama of a prime issue and boost McCain's prospects enormously. But voters hardly have to climb as high as the top of the ticket to find a fresh perspective on Iraq, if not an endorsement of al-Maliki's new stance.

U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, just back from Iraq, said she was amazed by the difference there. A new peace has allowed leaders to shift focus from keeping violence under control to figuring out how to govern.

Since she was first elected, there has been precious little light between Drake's position on an Iraq exit and the president's, defined by some version of these 2005 words: "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Even as the American surge in Iraq ends over the next several weeks, as Drake and others begin focusing on fall elections, as the U.N. mandate readies to expire in December, it appears that Iraq has finally begun to stand up, militarily and politically.

Drake said, in an interview with The Pilot, that "based on what I saw, there will be a lot of troop reductions" recommended by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is expected to decide on troop levels in the coming months.

If al-Maliki's movement was almost certainly prompted by the exigencies of Iraqi politics, coupled by a few months of relative security, it comes even as the U.S. military is exhausted, and as an increasingly violent Afghanistan demands renewed attention.

The Pentagon and the White House have long vowed to make their decisions based solely on "conditions on the ground" in Iraq.

Nobody might know how long the current quiet might last, or whether it would survive an American withdrawal, but peace and politics now herald a time - finally, and after too much loss - for U.S. forces to begin coming home. Whatever the reason, that is long overdue.