New York Times Editorial - Real timetables for Iraq

New York Times Editorial - Real timetables for Iraq
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: October 27, 2006


Funny how a few weeks before the election Bush administration officials start hinting at timetables for getting American troops out of Iraq. But spinning out implausible scenarios - like the claim that it might take only 12 to 18 more months for the Iraqis to be able to defend themselves - won't get Iraq any closer to containing the mayhem, nor this country any closer to extricating itself.

What is needed is an explicit, credible and public set of deadlines - for Iraq's leaders but also for President George W. Bush - to confront the most difficult problems, including disarming sectarian militias, stabilizing Baghdad, protecting minority rights and apportioning Iraq's oil wealth.

That's the only way Iraqis and Americans can judge whether progress is being made and whether the effort is worth the cost.

The American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, seemed to be moving down that road this week when he announced that Iraq's leaders had agreed to a timeline for "making the hard decisions" necessary to reduce sectarian bloodletting. The New York Times's review of the unpublished "notional political timetable" suggests that it is a lot less demanding than advertised.

For example, it gives the Iraqi Parliament until December to outline the terms for demobilizing militias. But it sets no deadline by which Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki - whose government is backed by two religious parties with powerful militias - must disarm the militias. The day after Khalilzad announced the existence of a timetable, Maliki held his own news conference denying that he had agreed to anything.

The Iraqis weren't the only ones backpedaling. A day after the top American general in Iraq, George Casey, acknowledged that more troops may be needed to help stabilize Baghdad, his office issued a "clarification" saying that wasn't really what he meant.

And while General Casey suggested that the Iraqis should be able to provide their own security in 12 to 18 months, Bush let slip that he had a far different timeline in mind. When asked at a news conference whether he would renounce any claim to permanent bases in Iraq, Bush said that was something for the Iraqi government to decide. He added, "And, frankly, it's not in much of a position to be thinking about what the world is going to look like five or 10 years from now."

This week we described what we believe must be done immediately to lessen the chances of chaos in Iraq after American troops withdraw. The Iraqis need to begin national reconciliation talks and disarm the militias. The Americans need to make a credible push to secure Baghdad and elicit the help of Iraq's neighbors.

There's no time left for notional timetables. Bush said the other day that "we're making it clear to the Iraqis that America's patience is not unlimited." We hope it's clear to Bush that Americans have already lost patience with his bumbling conduct of this war, and the remaining grace period can be measured in months, not years. That's a real deadline, for concrete progress, not for more rosy notions of victory.