Senator John McCain’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, once was a lonely voice demanding the withdrawal of all combat forces by mid-2010.
But now, Iraq’s leaders are pushing a timetable that would have American troops out in 2011.
Even President Bush, who long scorned the notion of a withdrawal deadline as defeatist, looks set to go along. Iraq’s leaders demand that he accept that deadline in exchange for legalizing the continued American military presence in the country.
That leaves Mr. McCain as the stubborn man out.
While Iraq is no longer front-page news, thousands of Americans are still fighting and dying there. The war is costing American taxpayers $10 billion a month - money that cannot be spent on health care, education or other urgent priorities.
Mr. McCain told veterans on August 11 that he would end the war but intended to “win it first,” and assured them that “victory in Iraq is finally in sight.” He needs to explain what he means by victory. A free and democratic Iraq, as Mr. Bush originally promised-That would take generations. The United States will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile country.
Iraq’s leaders have at least agreed on one thing: they want the Americans gone, sooner rather than later. But they are still squabbling over the political reforms that might bolster stability - squabbling that Mr. Bush enabled by insisting that America’s patience was unlimited. Mr. McCain seems eager to repeat that mistake.
Mr. McCain also owes the country an explanation of how he plans to salvage the war in Afghanistan - the true front line in the war on terrorism .
Mr. Obama has offered a sensible blueprint for dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even so, as with Mr. McCain, we need to hear more details.
For decades Republicans successfully painted Democrats as soft on defense. In this election, it is the Republicans who have to defend an abysmal eight-year legacy. We are waiting to hear Mr. McCain’s answers.