Iraq Withdrawal: Not so "Cut and Dry"

The US Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Bush administration on Thursday when it ruled that the government had overstepped its boundaries in setting up military tribunals for inmates at Guantanamo Bay detention center. The unfavorable ruling comes amidst persistently low job approval ratings and public pessimism about the War in Iraq, both of which Democrats hope to capitalize on in upcoming House and Senate mid-term elections.

Democrats hope to appeal to the public's frustration at the rising death-toll and price tag of the War in Iraq and have recently made calls for a withdrawal deadline or "phased withdrawal" of US troops. But while withdrawal would win the favor of the American public it would not bode well with the international community. The US has already come under international scrutiny for its part in the illegal transport of CIA terror detainees across European borders. In addition, the Supreme Court has deemed its military tribunals as contravening the Geneva Convention. In the midst of such international skepticism, the US can hardly afford to lessen its esteem in the eyes of its much needed partners in the War on Terror.

And that is exactly what a premature troop withdrawal would do. What those who strongly support such a move may not realize is that the rest of the world is attentively making a note of how the US handles what has essentially become its charge – the situation in Iraq. To withdraw troops at a point when Iraq is in a state of impending civil war would display a lack of responsibility and commitment to finish the job one started. Republicans have rightly described the recent proposals for withdrawal as "cut and run" and "cut and jog". With the international community keeping close record of US actions in Iraq, perhaps someone should explain to the democrats that withdrawal is not so "cut and dry".