al-Rubaie, Traitor?

Today's WaPo piece by Iraq's new national security advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie is likely to throw the folks over at the Weekly Standard into a tizzy.

Al-Rubaie begins by presenting a rather vacuous "unofficial 'road map' to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops." However, he is quick to point out that this plan should not be viewed as some kind of timetable since it is based "on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq." These objectives include ensuring that each of Iraq's 18 governates have stabilized the security situation in their province and demonstrated that their own local police and military units are capable of operating effectively. Though al-Rubaie does not deny that Iraq continues to be engulfed by an "endless spiral of violence" he insists that Iraq should be able to have full control of the country by the end of 2008 with most U.S. forces to be sent home by the end of 2007.

At the heart of al-Rubaie's withdrawal plan is his admission that it is the U.S. military presence itself that is driving the insurgency. Only "the drawdown of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to," he writes.

Given that the likes of the Standard are fond of labeling U.S. proponents of a withdrawal plan from Iraq as defeatists or traitors, it will be interesting to see what they label Iraq's own national security advisor. To be sure, al-Rubaie's "plan" differs from the recent proposal put forth by Feingold, Kerry, and Boxer, but really only in so far as the Senators think we should be out by July of 2007 (as opposed to the end of 2007). Ultimately, the spirit animating the two proposals is the same: the U.S. troop presence is hindering - not helping - progress in Iraq.