Election Central: The judgment to end the war responsibly

On Oct. 2, 2002, Barack Obama spoke out against the rush to war in Iraq. He laid out his case to the crowd: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

He steadfastly opposed the war because he believes it has overextended our military, diverted our attention from the fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and made our country less safe.

For many of you, this is old news. Barack Obama's initial opposition to the war in Iraq is well-known. Some may be tempted to say, "What have you done for me lately?" This is the center of John McCain's approach to the war in Iraq, with its focus on the "surge" at the expense of all else.

McCain presents his support for the surge as evidence that he rejected Bush and created the opportunity for "victory" in Iraq. His record clearly states otherwise.

It is clear that the surge reduced violence, as Obama said it would. But what comes next? McCain has no answer.

The central problem in McCain's approach to Iraq is his emphasis on "victory" as a legitimate post-surge strategy. It sounds good, but what does "victory" mean? Instead of answering this question, McCain plays Bush-style partisan games and accuses Obama of wanting to "surrender."

While Obama was endangering his fledgling Senate candidacy by speaking out against a then-popular war, McCain was parroting President Bush's Iraq war talking points. On March 12, 2003, he told Chris Matthews that we would "absolutely" be greeted as liberators in Iraq. When responding to doubts that the war was "over" on June 11, 2006, McCain replied, "Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier?" That same day he repeated another now-debunked claim: "I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

These statements and decisions are just as much a part of McCain's Iraq record as the surge. Though he pitches Iraq's failures as Bush's failures, he admitted how much he has stood with the president - in 2008: "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."

Obama's plan for Iraq makes sure that we are as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. A phased withdrawal will force Iraqis to tackle their political future head-on, and allow America's military to focus on more critical areas of the Middle East. He will increase diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors and leave a residual force to continue fighting al-Qaida.

Obama's idea of a phased withdrawal, on a specific timeline, has been endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al- Maliki, and even the Bush administration has begun to recognize the need for "general time horizons" in Iraq. McCain seems to be the only person left who believes that open-ended U.S. military involvement in Iraq is the answer.

There is nothing reckless about Obama's plan. It is certainly not surrender: That kind of partisan rhetoric, where patriotism is questioned, needs to disappear forever from our political discourse. It is time to turn the page on the entire mindset that got us into Iraq, not just our strategic failures.

Obama will end the war responsibly, so that we can stop spending $10.3 billion a month in Iraq (more than twice what the United States spends on education monthly) and bring our troops home.

After five long years, America deserves a responsible end to the war in Iraq, not more of the same.