LEAVING IRAQ

President Bush, rightly, has resisted offering a specific date for U.S. troops to leave Iraq – American withdrawal should depend on having an Iraqi government in place. But the lack of a date has given terrorists there a reason for believing the United States has imperial designs on the Middle East. An answer to this problem comes from Rep. Tom Allen, who has proposed a simple declaration to clarify U.S. intentions.

The Iraq Sovereignty Protection Act would have Congress establish that “it is the policy of the United States not to maintain a long-term or permanent military presence in Iraq.” It sets no timetables nor does it push the administration in a direction it opposes. Last year, President Bush noted the Iraqis do not support a permanent occupation and that he intended U.S. troops to stay only “as long as necessary and not one day more.” Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee “we have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

Instead, the bill’s aim is narrow, according to Rep. Allen, who says the act gives the United States time to get representative government in place, but, he added, “we don’t have the luxury of waiting for a stable society” to take hold.

Last May, a story in The Washington Post said U.S. military commanders were consolidating 100 bases occupied by international troops into four large and well-fortified air bases with concrete-block construction instead of metal trailers. The commanders said this did not mean the United States would have a permanent presence but would continue to rely on bases in Kuwait.

Rep. Allen’s bill – it is co-sponsored by Rep. John J. Duncan, a Republican from Tennessee – makes U.S. intentions clear to Iraq that any permanent military there will be Iraqi. U.S. support, in training or even equipment, could be expected, but the number of Americans would be small. Given that the U.S. military may inspire attacks even as it tries to protect against them, establishing that U.S. presence will be temporary may reduce the motivation for terrorism.

It could also change the debate in this country by taking away arguments that the war was about oil or that Baghdad was a stepping stone to Tehran. It would focus the public’s attention on a finite period and provide a sense that the end of the war and its costs, human and monetarily, were closer than previously thought.