Obama's Iraq Straddle

President Obama aims to drawn down a sizable portion of U.S. combat forces in Iraq over the next 18 months. According to the New York Times, his plan has some bi-partisan buy-in:

Mr. McCain and other Republicans emerged from a meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House on Thursday evening reassured that the president’s withdrawal plan is responsible and reasonable. After securing assurances from Mr. Obama that he would reconsider his plans if violence increases, Mr. McCain and the Republicans expressed cautious support.

In other words, the decision on the disposition of the U.S. military is actually in the hands of Iraq's various political actors and not the U.S. Should the Iraqis return to violence, the U.S., according to Obama, will be compelled to stay.

This has been the essential conceptual muddle with Obama's position on Iraq all along. He says he wants to end the war but he won't disavow the regional interests that have made leaving Iraq seem so daunting. Hence the caveats about leaving "responsibly."

Obama's aides tell the New York Times that "the path is not towards any sort of a Korea model... the path is towards reducing, in a fairly substantial way, U.S. forces in 2010 and then down to what’s currently anticipated, down to zero, by the end of 2011.”

But how convincing is this pledge if it comes with the corollary that the withdrawal is predicated on the Iraqis playing nice?

As long as the security situation remains stable in Iraq, President Obama can skate by with this muddle. But should we face a return to violence on a larger scale (which is still possible given the country's history), his straddle becomes untenable. He will then need to tell the American people that his promise to end the war was actually subordinate to other Middle Eastern priorities or he can risk inciting a bi-partisan uproar and withdraw while Iraq burns.