In an important sense, the presidential campaign has helped frame the question facing Americans as they ponder the war in Iraq. No longer is it especially helpful to debate the wisdom of the U.S. effort there. What should concern the nation now -- after five years, thousands of American lives lost or ruined, an unknown number of Iraqi dead, and with the pending departure of the president whose administration must bear the responsibility for what has gone thus far -- is what to do next.

And that question, in turn, was brought into sharper focus last week with the Capitol Hill testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and with President Bush's speech about the prospects for the short term. By now, anything past the short term is beyond Bush's purview. When he speaks about Iraq, he is speaking largely about the Iraq he will leave to the next administration.
It is, first, an Iraq with 140,000 American troops. That the number is smaller than the surge of 170,000 is some comfort, but it is hardly on track with the troop reductions that Americans had been allowed to hope for, if not exactly expect. Second, it is a theater in which American soldiers can expect to serve only a year at a time, with at least a year off between deployments.
That change is an important one; the current 15-month tour is an unreasonable hardship for many soldiers and their families. Even if the announced change were not the humane thing to do, it would also be the practical thing to do, for the military is worn dangerously, ill-advisedly thin. It needs the effort in Iraq to be scaled back so that it can concentrate more of its forces on, for example, Afghanistan.
The conclusion of the surge, though, may represent a moment of truth. The increase of 30,000 soldiers produced the desired effect, a reduction in violence. As the withdrawal has progressed, however, insurgent attacks have begun to rise. Last week was the year's deadliest for American forces. For the surge to be truly successful, it needs to have produced a lasting benefit -- and whether it has done so is far from clear.
Bush's speech sounded some notes that needed to be heard -- notably a heightened expectation that Iraq will take on a greater share of the burden, not only for its defense but also for its reconstruction. His emphasis on the need for a less-dependent Iraq rang true.
Given the economic challenges facing the United States, there is little appetite among taxpayers for indefinitely financing Iraq's recovery. And Bush was right to stress the interest that all Middle East nations have in a prosperous, self-sustaining Iraq.
President Bush will have more to say about the Iraq war before he leaves office. But from now on, the future of the war will increasingly be determined by those who oppose him abroad and those who seek to succeed him at home. Bush's involvement will be a matter for hindsight, and history.
(SOurce: startribune.com)