Guardian: Barack Obama will meet Gordon Brown in London next week. He seems to have taken on board the difficulties in Iraq, and has set out his intentions more clearly than before:
"On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war ... We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won't have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq. As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan."
John McCain has been less explicit, limiting himself to soundbites about seeing things through and not surrendering. When he discussed Iraq and Afghanistan with Gordon Brown in March scarcely anything was made public.
Gordon Brown's formula on withdrawal from Iraq, most recently repeated on July 14 is "I am not going to set an artificial timetable.". That was before Barack Obama published his timetable ideas, and the formula now looks well past its sell by date.
Those of us who have always opposed the war naturally hope that Gordon Brown will at last talk reduction and withdrawal, perhaps on the lines of Barack Obama. But there is a catch. To avoid the blimpish criticisms about appeasement and surrender of which our leaders seem so afraid – criticisms that are largely the creation of their own imaginations – he will be tempted, like Obama, to say that we are not really chickening out, just moving our troops from one unwinnable war to another.
The writer hits the nail on the head. The idea of "surrendering" is like the Plague for the Bush-McCains. They can't seem to get beyond that thought.
I would argue that wars aren't "winnable." That's why war needs to be a last resort. Bush just didn't have the chops to take care of Iraq diplomatically. The old conquer our enemy mindset overshadowed any reason.
