Iraq endgame?

A new U.S. agreement with the Iraqi government could herald the winding down of a costly, controversial war

The Parliament of Iraq has been bedeviled by the same animosities that nearly tore the country apart when the ongoing war was at its most violent. Yet the country's lawmakers finally have pulled together well enough to take yes for an answer. They backed a "status of forces" agreement with the United States that includes a commitment to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

Final approval by the Iraqi government awaits. But what's not to like about setting a date by which America's role in the war -- begun 5 1/2 agonizing years ago -- conceivably could be over? This could be a long-awaited milestone -- although most certainly the Islamic radicals whose attacks still claim American and Iraqi lives will try to dodge any semblance of defeat.

Iraqi opponents of the pact denounce it as signifying undue cooperation with an occupying force. They would rather see the United States abandon its Iraqi presence straightaway.

But even with President-elect Obama having campaigned on his intent to bring American troops home, there was no chance that the withdrawal would be immediate. Obama prudently has left some flexibility in a timetable that would have U.S. combat forces withdrawn by mid-2010, conditions permitting. The Bush administration at first resisted the timetable approach -- but then realized it could make the best of a bad situation by getting on board. Hence its commitment to the deadline three years from now.

What evidently changed minds at the White House was the emerging stability of the Iraqi government and the growing effectiveness of Iraq's own security forces. With violence declining and Iraqis on both sides of the Shiite-Sunni divide finding common cause against al-Qaida terrorism, it became realistic to hope that a democratic government could survive even without American forces on hand to prop it up.

The surge of U.S. troops and fresh tactics led by Gen. David Petraeus had their intended effect -- tamping down bloodshed and establishing breathing room for Iraqi politicians to try to resolve their differences.

Success has not been total. The struggle for power in the post-Saddam Hussein era remains deadly. Issues vital to national reconciliation have yet to be settled, and terrorists seek to turn the people against a government that can't be relied on to protect them.

But just as temporarily increasing the American presence seems to have helped clean up the agonizing mess that the war had become, so the winding down of that presence is essential both for a healthy Iraq and to free the United States to deal with other priorities. President Bush understands that. Obama understands it, and now the Iraqis too have acknowledged the inevitable.

A key priority needing attention is the situation in Afghanistan, where the terrorist-aligned Taliban have regained strength and threaten the American-allied central government.

A U.S. drawdown in Iraq should make it more feasible to shift forces to Afghanistan. But the lessons of Iraq must be taken to heart: The terror threat to Afghanistan, flowing out of Pakistan, is unlikely to be eliminated by military means. Again, Obama and his team seem to understand that to curb the forces of terrorism will require a broad-based effort. And to sustain whatever progress can be salvaged from the near-debacle in Iraq as the U.S. prepares to depart, the tools of politics and international cooperation will be just as important.