When the U.S. Abdicates, Disaster Usually Follows

◼ The gradual disintegration of Iraq has prompted any number of backward glances: At President Obama and his policies; at the stewardship of Iraq's now ex-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ; at the forces of religion and tribalism. - Philip Terzian/Wall St. Journal

My own backward glance is to January 2008, and the early stages of the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. At a town meeting in New Hampshire, candidate Sen. John McCain was asked to comment on President George W. Bush's assertion that American troops might have to remain in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe one hundred," Mr. McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."

All hell broke loose in the media. Democratic candidates then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama swiftly condemned what was widely regarded as a gaffe. On CNN Mr. McCain felt obliged to clarify. "It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq," he explained, alluding to our military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea, "it's if we succeed or not."

In retrospect, Mr. McCain was correct: He predicted that setting a timetable for withdrawal would mean "chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved." This is now happening. But the press consensus, then as now, was that the American people were war-weary and a President McCain would perpetuate Mr. Bush's "failed" policies....

We have here an object lesson in statecraft: The duty of political leaders in perilous times is to lead, not follow, public opinion. And "war-weariness," whatever that means, is no excuse for dereliction of historic duty.