Election Central: Waiting until withdrawal is an option for us

It has been almost a full six years since the United States passed a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. A Senate comprised of 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one independent overwhelmingly passed the measure 77-23 to begin a tumultuous endeavor that continues today.

Since he began his campaign, Senator Barack Obama has attempted to play the blame game with the Iraq war, painting Senator John McCain as Bush's war-loving sidekick. In last week's debate, Obama said he stood up against the war in 2002, perhaps to the open ears of his law students. For those people whose say mattered, however, 77 percent of the Senate and 68 percent of the House felt that the war was justified action against the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. It's easy for Obama to now say he would have voted against the war. How and why the war started, however, is not the issue in the 2008 election. How we handle Iraq moving forward is. Ever since General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, American forces have seen increased success. The surge and counterinsurgency strategies that were previously endorsed by McCain and finally adopted in 2007 have led to a 90 percent decrease in sectarian and ethnic violence, as well as a 70 percent decrease in deaths. Political reconciliation at the local and provincial levels is happening all over Iraq, and while progress is slow at the national level, there is still progress.

These important gains would all be lost were the United States to adopt the policy of Obama. The risk of losing these gains, however, is greatly outweighed by the consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq. Should the United States choose to leave Iraq or set timetables for staged troop withdrawal, a number of things could happen. First, al-Qaida would survive and likely prosper. A civil war could very easily start and spiral out of control toward genocide. The entire region would become destabilized while neighboring powers would come to the aid of different factions in Iraq.

McCain doesn't want to stay in Iraq; rather, he believes that there are too many dangers inherent with an early departure. There are several things he wants to happen before he brings U.S. forces home. Political reconciliation on the national level and a successful national government need to be achieved to ensure stability for the Iraqi people. Two crucial elections, both for local and national government, are scheduled within the next year. McCain would like for the United States to welcome the UN back to the table to help support these elections to promote more stability in Iraq.

Another crucial element of McCain's plan for Iraq is the rejuvenation of its economy. To prevent young men from joining well-funded extremists, a growing economy is necessary. By the end of this year, the Iraqi government will have roughly a $79 billion surplus. It can use these funds to employ its own citizens in infrastructure projects and to better deliver basic services like electricity and garbage collection. Setting timetables for troop withdrawal without conditions is an easy political move to make, because it is what a large portion of people want to hear; but that doesn't make it right. It shows a lack of concern for the Iraqi people, indifference toward our interests in the Middle East, and apathy for the state of the entire region in the future. Regardless of what people think of the wisdom that sent the American forces to war in Iraq, they must understand that it is in our interest to keep them there until withdrawal is safe. McCain will know when we have reached that point.