While we have the greatest respect for his long service to this nation and his record of military valor, Sen. John McCain's statement critical of the current president's decision to proceed with a military withdrawal from Iraq is outrageous.

"It is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of United States troops from Iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests. I believe that history will judge this president's leadership with scorn and disdain, with the scorn and disdain that it deserves," said the Republican senator from Arizona, defeated by President Obama in the 2008 election.

No, Sen. McCain, it will be the decision of leaders, such as yourself, who supported the invasion of Iraq without clear evidence of a serious threat to the United States and without a plan for managing the chaos that predictably ensued, that history will judge harshly.

To be fair, Sen. McCain was hardly alone. The rush to war crossed political lines and enjoyed support from many editorial boards that should have known better. (The Day opposed the invasion.)

To his credit, Sen. McCain recognized early on that the number of U.S. forces were inadequate to secure a post-invasion Iraq. President George W. Bush's eventual decision to increase troop strength saved what otherwise could have been a lost cause and Sen. McCain rightly backed that policy at a political price.

But we remind Sen. McCain that President Obama has only done what he said he would do - carry out the agreement to withdraw troops by December 2011, as negotiated by the prior Bush administration and the sovereign, elected government of Iraq. During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama pledged to get the United States out of Iraq, while Sen. McCain said his approach would be an open-ended commitment dictated by circumstances "on the ground."

Need we remind Sen. McCain who won the election?

Sen. McCain represents a minority view that it is too soon for the United States to hand over the wheel to Iraqis. Combat troops should remain, their argument goes, to ensure security, leaving only when Iraq has a more stable governance, improved security forces, and perhaps a leader that is less self-preservation oriented than Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The truth is that Iraq, a post-colonial creation, has always been a nation plagued by sectarian and tribal divisions. Waiting for assurances that Iraq will get beyond those divisions and secure a predictable future led by a Jeffersonian-style government would mean waiting a very long time. In other words, it would require a permanent occupation in defiance of Iraq's desires.

In an effort to keep its options open, the Obama administration had sought legal immunity for U.S. troops if they stayed beyond the Dec. 31 withdrawal date, preventing them from being dragged before Iraqi courts. The administration could not gain even that small concession, suggesting the lack of interest by the Iraqi government in maintaining a sizable U.S. presence.

A ceremony Thursday lowering the command flag that flew over Baghdad officially ended the nine-year U.S. military mission in Iraq. The troops did the job asked of them. In the process, nearly 4,500 Americans were killed, more than 30,000 wounded. Many soldiers saw multiple assignments to that nation. They toppled a tyrant, routed insurgents and secured for Iraqis the opportunity for self-governance and rule by law.

That's enough. It was time to leave.