Matters of Opinion

Appropriately, it was The Clash that sang, loudly, "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" The clash in Iraq changes complexion with the official end of The Surge, and the clash between Barack Obama and John McCain is shifting from the stupid economy -- sorry, the economy, stupid -- to Iraq and Afghanistan. [Associated Press analysis here.]

In an editorial today, The Buffalo News argues that if the elected leadership of Iraq wants a timetable for U.S. withdrawl from their country, we have to give it to them: If Iraq is a sovereign country, which Bush says it is, and that government wants us to leave, we’re going to have to leave. If it later turns out that Iraq wasn’t ready, that it will find itself unable to cope with terrorists, tribalists or Iranian troublemakers, that’s going to be bad — but unavoidable, because we can’t stay there forever.

Elsewhere:
* In The Boston Globe a couple of think-tankers hope that Iraq's newfound backbone will: save the United States from its own worst impulses, by making it impossible for it to pursue an illogical policy of open-ended military engagement.
* The Chicago Tribune notes the difference between timetables proposed by U.S. Democrats who think we lost, and Iraqi officials who think we've won.
* The deep thinkers at The Economist say the argument over the wars is getting more complicated. Which is a good thing.
* Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet notes that, at least on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where both candidates agree things are going badly, it is Obama who comes across as the hawk.
* Over on AlterNet, Tom Hayden says: Obama is serious about a withdrawal plan for Iraq, but he's committed himself to expanding the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dumb Idea.
* In Seattle, The Post-Intelligencer gives Obama props for being tough and smart: More than anything, Obama combined principle with realism. In practice, that's a tricky balance, but rarely has it been so sorely lacking as over the past seven years.

--George Pyle/Editorial Writer