The character and standard of the Presidency is “best amongst best”. It’ s home, The White House, is a place associated not with arms or hostile agreements, but purposed as the focal point of a peace loving nation wishing to live its own life in a world fit and safe. Americans and the international community have come to recognize that within each Administration within the Presidency, there remain strong moral principles, the deepest preserve and safeguard of the Constitution of the United States, and the assurance of justice and fair dealings. There is also the understanding that America is not good because it is great, it great because it is good. One can hold solemn an appreciation of “the blessings of Liberty” and of a government which the balances and values of the Constitution. America is good because it relies upon the respect and dignities which are due a diverse of people. America is a nation of innovation in the sciences, and nation leading the world in food production, engineering, communications, manufacturing and innovations. As a nation, American have set feet upon the moon, constructed a space laboratory in cooperation with other nations of the world, and established several footholds in our solar system and the galaxies beyond. Such is but a small glimpse of the character and standard of best amongst best. By axiom it debunks the myth of the mediocre : “The Surge”. When the surge was introduced, it was the month after Congressional elections of 2006. The President dismissed Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and introduced Secretary Gates for a new direction in Iraq. The political processes there had broken down. Growing violence and civil unrest in the marketplaces and upon the numerous oil resources were on the verge of secular civil war. Yet there was a clear message from the Congressional returns of 2006—that the continuing and unresolved consequences of ousting the Saddam regime needed to be addressed; along with the need to change the “character’ of the conflict. There is no doubt that surge and destroy changed the perimeters of the conflict. Specialized forces quelled the insurrections and daily explosions killing thousands of Iraqi. It separated opposing parties with the construct of mazes and walls and checkpoints. Promises of economic stimulus, and principles of social and economic health for that nation were further removed and buried the fundamental flaws of the Coalition Authority. Post - election recommendations, such as Hamilton/Baker Commission, were placed aside with the President’s announcement of a coming surge as response. The President announced that he was the sole decider of the surge. And the President destined the next President to resolve the complexities of Iraq. The president knew that the military was a special instrument and what it is meant to be : a lethal force. “ It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society” ( Dr. Rice , Foreign Affairs, 10/2000). It would begin in the spring and last without a timetable, though inherently the President’s term would come to pass. A few days later, Saddam Hussein was executed. There was a finality in the “coping with rogue regimes” and to the outlined goals : “Some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is a prototype. Saddam Hussein’s regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develope WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the Unites States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him. ( Dr. Rice, ibid). It was a theory not in fact. By spring the military began its cleansing. There were no displays of democracy, nor any hopes for a reform of political and economic systems. In places like Rimaldi, marines called in air strikes to destroy Insurgent homes. Cobra helicopters engaged insurgents on the roads and in time the nation was pacified. Agreements toward restructuring and preparing the Iraqi national government take on “their responsibilities’ were pale in contrast to the force majure of continued military objectives. The surge left none of the foundations for which withdrawal could be reasonable. Without the foundations of democracy, including the stability of the national government to the social , economic and political health of the nation, the core problems perpetuate. In the most fundamental, the inclusion of the military and it continued existence is the antithesis to establishing democracy, freedoms, and the aspirations which people strive for—to be free of genocide, starvation, and the ravages of war and disasters. The result is an imperfect situation for a new President. However, it is not an impossible situation. Yet imperfect as it is, it provides an opportunity to adopt and accord structure and activity which provides definition upon the national government with stability and peace. The President- elect’s proposed removal of the troops, phased in a responsible manner is but one of the essential steps to the avoid repetition of Ceasefire I and Ceasefire II during the Vietnam era. Withdrawal, even directed by our surest military leaders and done in consultation with the Iraqi government, provides little if any of the basis for international accord or the institutional social , economic and political health of the nation. Nor does pure withdrawal (W) address the most fundamental character of democratic governments: that they transcend themselves and turn over the powers of the nation to a new government that will support the next transcendence of government. For that to be, the next need stem the tide of regional isolations and animosity. That can best be addressed with the realism of the threats the American nation. There is a definite danger of a collapse or threat upon the national government which can further erode the perception of response by the American government to properly intervene and maintain an order in the conflicts and humanitarian needs of the world. The definition of an enhanced schedule of withdrawal must be accompanied by tandem schedules that provide verification to the American principles of democracy. Elections for a new national government are central. They can be done without the “imperfections” of 2005 and within the timetable (that American and Iraqi forces can provide apt security) of withdrawal. Operationally the conduct of elections adds a new dimension to the commanders withdrawal timetable, but measures a definition of stability for which forces may be minimized. Additionally, diplomatic measures must be administered. One clear and transparent measure is the holding of regional conferences , open to as diplomatic to the national governments of the region and qualified non governmental organizations. Regional conferences , the establishment of organization for the hearing of grievances , developing a functional organization with such efforts as economic development and assistance are beyond the battlefield duties of commanders with directives to maintain counter- insurgency and the strict protection. The character of best amongst best can do the simultaneous. It can addess with leadership engage in diplomacy, implement accords directly with the national government regarding conciliatory factors, national assets, and a specific course of postal, commerce, and maritime agreements and treaties of peace and friendship.