Now that two candidates for the Presidential race in 2008 have already declared (Vilsack for the Democrats, McCain for the Republicans), it occurs to me that whoever ends up winning the White House in 2008 will eventually regret that victory.
George Bush made clear some months ago that the fate of Iraq would ultimately be left to future Presidents. Under his illusions of achieving "victory" in Iraq, though he has never provided a definition for "victory" that means anything, he has dragged the U. S. military into a quagmire. Both the Democratic victory in the elections, and the coming Baker-Hamilton Commission report will urge a new direction for dealing with Iraq, but Bush has repeatedly proven himself to be intransigent to changing course in anything once he's made up his mind. As such, the next President will enter office with the spector of the Iraq War hanging over him or her.
What will the new President's options be, and what are the likely outcomes?
Practically speaking, there are two optionns, and neither of them is a winner. One of them is to pull our military forces out of Iraq. This is clearly what a majority of Americans want, but the question of how to do this without inducing a bloodbath in Iraq (even worse than now) is a very difficult one. What many have been calling for, and what's rumored to be suggesteed in the Baker-Hamilton report, is to bring together representatives of nations in the region to help hammer out some kind of solution that would allow the pullout of U. S. forces while maintaining some level of peace and order in Iraq. Even as one who is not an expert in Middle Eastern politics, it seems to me that the hope for success in such a conference is limited. If the next President is able to bring the troops home, and there is a huge increase in chaos and violence in Iraq, the blame will fall on the President.
On the other hand, the alternative would be to continue as we are. I don't think any candidate for President would get elected if he or she campaigned on "stay the course"; indeed, the result of the elections now just finished demostrate this. But a President who campaigned on withdrawal from Iraq, but then lacks the courage to actually do it, fearing both the humanitarian and political consequences, may leave us in more or less the same situation after 4 years in office. (Recall that, in Vietnam, most people who were paying attention recognized that the war could not be won by 1968, after the Tet Offensive, but we remained in Vietnam until 1975, 7 years after Tet.)
The Iraq War is going to be a boat anchor around the neck of the next President, and whatever decision or action he or she makes, many people will die, and he or she will get the blame for it. Who would seriously want the Presidency under these circumstances? I think the only hope would be someone who recognizes the political realities of the situation. Particularly, if the next President is a Democrat (my own personal preference), he or she should accept that he or she will be serving only one term, and will leave office under a cloud of criticism for the unavoidable disaster. With this understanding, it will be easier for the President to do the necessary thing regarding the war. For that matter, if the next President does not get us out of Iraq, he or she will not be re-elected anyway (though I do have bad memories of Nixon's "secret plan" in 1972).
But I would be willing to bet that, regardless of what actions the next President takes in Iraq, he or she will be limited to one term.