In the December 1 edition of The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss argues that President-elect Barack Obama must resist pressure to stay in Iraq, and must make good on his campaign pledge to end the war he opposed as a state senator in Illinois.

Dreyfuss says that the recent financial crisis moved Iraq out of the forefront of voters’ minds, making it more difficult “…for Obama to claim that he has a mandate to end the war.” And despite the fact that only ten percent of exit poll respondents cited Iraq as their number one issue, Obama must claim a mandate to end the war, “…because,” Dreyfuss says, “as president-elect and then as president, he is going to face enormous pressure to abandon his pledge to withdraw.”

Who will the pressure come from? According to Dreyfuss, it will come from Obama advisers, hawkish Democrats, conservatives, neoconservatives, editorial pages of major newspapers, prominent think tanks, and the military. “Indeed,” Dreyfuss writes, “a showdown with the military command could be the most dramatic event of Obama’s first weeks in office.”

For years the military establishment has been pushing for a conditions-based withdrawal, arguing that a firm timeline ignores the security situation on the ground and does not allow for flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. A conditions-based withdrawal is at odds with Obama’s pledge to pull all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

Describing the potential confrontation, Dreyfuss says: “Early in his administration, Obama may sit down with Petraeus – a politically savvy general who, it is rumored, is thinking about running for office himself, and who is the darling of the neoconservative movement – and tell him he intends to pull one to two combat brigades out of Iraq every month, starting immediately.”

Personally, I don’t see this conversation happening at all. I can’t imagine that a President Obama, now responsible for what happens in Iraq, will pull the plug without regard for the potential consequences. Tremendous progress has been made in Iraq since President Bush ordered additional troops to Baghdad and Anbar Province in 2007. President Obama will not want the progress achieved to date to fall apart on his watch. He will not be willing to bear the political price of a failed Iraqi state dominated by Iran, a massive humanitarian crisis, and a potentially wider Middle East war if the violence spills over into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria or Jordan. No, I expect there will indeed be a conversation with Petraeus, but that it will center on how to withdraw without jeopardizing the stability of the Iraqi government.

Still, let’s imagine for a minute that Obama does order to Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs to begin an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq based on a strict timeline and without regard for changing security conditions. Dreyfuss says, “The Constitution gives Obama the power to order them to carry out the new policy, whether they like it or not. If they don’t, well, he can tell them not be let the door rattle their medals on the way out.”

There’s no question that the commander-in-chief has the authority to order a withdrawal from Iraq, and there is no question that Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs would obey that order. But they would do so only after fulfilling their obligation to inform the commander-in-chief of the consequences of any potential actions he might be considering. And it is those consequences that will give the new president pause.

Despite his advocacy of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal, referred to in some circles as a retreat, Dreyfuss is worried that Obama will cave to the pressure to finish the job in Iraq. He points to facts that I have written about before, such as Obama’s refusal to define the size of a potential residual force, his willingness to listen to commanders on the ground, and his vague characterizations of potential missions for our soldiers in Iraq. As I have said before, Obama carefully crafted his words to allow himself the flexibility to back off his campaign pledge to withdraw from Iraq immediately and completely.

I believe Obama never had any intention of pulling out of Iraq on a sixteen month timetable, unless that timetable agreed with security conditions on the ground. He’s no fool and he certainly will not feel bound to honor a pledge that could cost him a second term. Dreyfuss says that “Bush has handed him a country still perched on the brink of civil war, and it could flare up again at any moment.” What Dreyfuss ignores is that Iraq is considerably more stable and secure than it was when Obama advocated a complete withdrawal in 2006, and that the potential for a flare up is exactly why it makes no sense to pull out precipitously. The situation in Iraq has changed, and Obama’s rhetoric has followed suit.

Dreyfuss concludes by saying, “If violence grows, Obama may pay a political price, but get out he must. Doing so will require boldness, decisive action and skillful regional and international diplomacy.”

It will also require an incredible amount of stupidity.