7-16-08, 9:22 am

The Obama campaign this week seized on a call by the Iraqi government to link a timetable for withdrawal to any status of forces agreement with the US.

In an op-ed published in the New York Times on July 14, Barack Obama wrote, 'The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.'

The Iraqi government's proposal for a timetable caused some stir within the Bush administration. According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration is no longer pushing for a long-term status of forces treaty with Iraq. 'What we're doing now is more ... a bridge to have the authority in place so we don't turn into a pumpkin on December 31,' the Post quoted a top level Bush official as saying.

July 15, at a press conference, George W. Bush himself attempted to avoid using the term troop withdrawal, preferring instead to pose the issue as a 'transition to Operation Overwatch,' the code name for the transfer of security operation to Iraqi troops.

Meanwhile, Newsweek reported this week that the Pentagon has produced a plan suggesting 'that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now.'

The Obama campaign further contrasted its position on Iraq with McCain in a press conference July 14 and a major policy speech on Iraq and US foreign policy July 15. Clearly, the Obama campaign has rejected the supposed common wisdom that making the Iraq war a key campaign question would benefit John McCain.

In his speech from Washington DC, July 15, titled 'A New Strategy for a New World,' Obama described the single-mindedness of the Bush administration and John McCain, a key congressional supporter of the war, as unsound and as a 'distraction' from real problems.

Obama recalled that Iraq was neither responsible for the September 11th attacks organized by Al-Qaeda nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction.

'Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face,' Obama said, 'I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.'

Much of Obama's political base has long agreed that the invasion of Iraq distracted the US and the world from pursuing the people behind the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Thus, while large majority of Americans rejected the Iraq war, that same antiwar sentiment never took hold against operations in Afghanistan. Indeed much of Obama's base agrees with his 'realist' foreign policy of using military intervention to achieve policy aims.

While it is possible to disagree with these key features of Obama's foreign policy – points that will by necessity form the basis of renewed struggle in the event of his victory in November – ending the war in Iraq, shifting to multilateral diplomatic measures, and reengaging the international community in a unified and necessary struggle against religious extremist terrorists are points on which we can find no fault.

How the latter point is carried out, however, must remain a point of contention.

So far it has been. Obama's strong restatement of his commitment to ending the war in Iraq while ramping up combat efforts in Afghanistan prompted one of his strongest left supporters, peace activist Tom Hayden, to wonder, 'Is an expanded war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fueled by troop transfers from Iraq, winnable? In what sense?'

Hayden, nevertheless, saw some promise in what Obama has said overall. 'The beginning of an alternative may require unfreezing American diplomacy towards Iran and considering a 'grand bargain' instead,' he wrote this week. Iran has an overriding interest in a peaceful Iraq, but an even greater interest in settling the conflict in Afghanistan and ending the extremist Taliban and Al Qaeda role there.

Hayden is forced to conclude, however, 'ending one war Iraq to start two more in Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to be a dumb idea.'

Indeed, Obama's own assertion that $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq is needed more here at home to fix our infrastructure, build a universal health care system, invest in sustainable energy, and create jobs. Not in a misguided adventure in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

--Reach Joel Wendland at