The Bush administration's time is draining away. President George W. Bush apparently believes that history will vindicate his policies, but his domestic record is a mishmash of wild spending, massive corporate bailouts, civil liberties violations and executive aggrandisement.
On foreign policy, his programme comes down to little more than Iraq. Alas, the case for invading Iraq was entirely wrong. Throughout the bloody collapse of Iraqi civil society, he sought to fashion a permanent, or 'enduring', occupation.
However, this attempt to pressure Baghdad into accepting the lengthy presence of military personnel immune from Iraqi law backfired, as Iraqis rallied against Washington. After months of bargaining, the two governments negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) to replace the current UN mandate, which expires on December 31. But rising popular opposition convinced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that pushing ahead was, he reportedly said, 'political suicide'.
Washington agreed to further concessions and the Iraqi cabinet has okayed the pact, though it still requires parliamentary approval. If no arrangement is reached, the US has threatened to 'basically stop doing anything' militarily.
The right policy is an expeditious exit. Washington should begin a rapid drawdown of its forces. At the same time, the US should urge Iraq's neighbours to develop regional arrangements to promote Iraqi stability. It doesn't matter if the Maliki government secretly wants to keep its foreign guardians around a little longer. America's interest, and that of its allies, is to get out of Iraq.
However, some of president-elect Barack Obama's aides talk of keeping substantial numbers of US troops in Iraq in various advisory capacities. That's a bad idea.