One of the ironies in Barack Obama's ascension to the presidency is that he became the Democratic Party's nominee in great part because of his initial opposition to the war in Iraq. While he did not have the political pressure of having to vote on an October 2002 resolution authorizing the United States to use force in Iraq, Obama was among a vocal minority speaking against using military force.
By the time he launched his bid for the presidency in 2006, most of America agreed with Obama that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and it helped the Chicago Democrat to gain a foothold in the primaries. By the time the general election finally arrived last Tuesday, the economic crisis had dwarfed the war in Iraq as the dominant issue of the campaign.
Still, the war in Iraq remains a point of contention among Americans, and will be one of myriad big issues Obama must deal with soon after taking office next January.
Obama pledged during the campaign to take all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. Some of those troops, he's said, would be shifted to bolster our presence in Afghanistan.
The major questions are whether Obama can deliver on that pledge, and whether he should. Obama will face major pressure from his own party and its supporters to make good on the promise.
But while last year's surge in combat troops has proven successful in reducing Iraqi violence, history and a recent uptick in attacks suggest that the success is tenuous at best. Obama will face major pressure from Republicans - and perhaps even his own secretary of defense, if he retains Robert Gates as many have suggested he should - to avoid withdrawing too early.
There also is growing economic pressure to end the war in Iraq sooner rather than later. While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money is being spent on the war, estimates are that monthly costs today are anywhere from $4 billion to in excess of $10 billion. The Washington Post earlier this year estimated that the war ultimately will cost the U.S. in excess of $3 trillion.
Whatever the exact cost, with our economy in free fall at home, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify the expenditures in Iraq when the mission and future there remains so unclear.
Obama consistently has called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq that follows an established timetable. President Bush once derided that call as dangerous, but now the U.S. is actively involved in negotiations with the Iraqi government to set such a timetable that would have American troops out of Iraq by 2012 and give Iraqis greater control over the mission.
Whether it's 2010 or 2012 when combat troops are out of Iraq, the Iraqi government's hold on relative peace in the country is likely to be fragile. The longer we enable the Iraqis to rely on our presence, the longer it will take for the Iraqi government to truly take charge of its own country.
For that reason, and because of the economic impact the Iraq war continues to have at home, Obama's best course of action is to demand a withdrawal timetable closer to his campaign pledge than to the agreement currently in the works. It's time to begin bringing our combat troops home, sooner rather than later, in a deliberate and orderly manner.
By the time he launched his bid for the presidency in 2006, most of America agreed with Obama that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and it helped the Chicago Democrat to gain a foothold in the primaries. By the time the general election finally arrived last Tuesday, the economic crisis had dwarfed the war in Iraq as the dominant issue of the campaign.
Still, the war in Iraq remains a point of contention among Americans, and will be one of myriad big issues Obama must deal with soon after taking office next January.
Obama pledged during the campaign to take all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. Some of those troops, he's said, would be shifted to bolster our presence in Afghanistan.
The major questions are whether Obama can deliver on that pledge, and whether he should. Obama will face major pressure from his own party and its supporters to make good on the promise.
But while last year's surge in combat troops has proven successful in reducing Iraqi violence, history and a recent uptick in attacks suggest that the success is tenuous at best. Obama will face major pressure from Republicans - and perhaps even his own secretary of defense, if he retains Robert Gates as many have suggested he should - to avoid withdrawing too early.
There also is growing economic pressure to end the war in Iraq sooner rather than later. While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money is being spent on the war, estimates are that monthly costs today are anywhere from $4 billion to in excess of $10 billion. The Washington Post earlier this year estimated that the war ultimately will cost the U.S. in excess of $3 trillion.
Whatever the exact cost, with our economy in free fall at home, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify the expenditures in Iraq when the mission and future there remains so unclear.
Obama consistently has called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq that follows an established timetable. President Bush once derided that call as dangerous, but now the U.S. is actively involved in negotiations with the Iraqi government to set such a timetable that would have American troops out of Iraq by 2012 and give Iraqis greater control over the mission.
Whether it's 2010 or 2012 when combat troops are out of Iraq, the Iraqi government's hold on relative peace in the country is likely to be fragile. The longer we enable the Iraqis to rely on our presence, the longer it will take for the Iraqi government to truly take charge of its own country.
For that reason, and because of the economic impact the Iraq war continues to have at home, Obama's best course of action is to demand a withdrawal timetable closer to his campaign pledge than to the agreement currently in the works. It's time to begin bringing our combat troops home, sooner rather than later, in a deliberate and orderly manner.
