In other words, all the yammering by various politicians about bringing the troops home by March 2008 is nonsense. Which is not to say that a withdrawal shouldn't start now--it's just going to take a fairly long time.
Um, when it was proposed Joe, March 2008 was more than a year away. Then Joe plays his backdoor "oppose withdrawal" game:
What is the nature of the Iraqi government that the remaining division-plus (20,000 troops) will be "protecting" and the nature of the Iraqi military that another 10,000 US troops will be training? No small question. But gradually, over the past few weeks, we've seen various U.S. military and intelligence officers say that the odds of an inclusive Shi'ite-Sunni-Kurd government are practically nonexistant. That means it will be a Shi'ite government. That implies we're going to have pick sides among the Shi'ite factions. It also means Sunni-Shi'ite war without end. It also means possible chaos.
...And finally, it means that these neat military plans are taking place in a vacuum: Without some sense of the political shape of the Iraqi government, we can plan away to little effect. As ever, the military and political aspects of this catastrophe seem to be running on separate tracks. I can't imagine how dreadful the U.S. withdrawal to Kuwait will be if it occurs under fire. Again, what a mess. And again and again.
(Emphasis supplied.) What is Joe saying in the end here? We can't leave because of the chaos. Joe can't imagine how dreadful the US withdrawal to Kuwait will be? But the status quo is an acceptable and imaginable dreadfulness apparently.
This is the game now. Pretend you are against the Iraq Debacle but oh so reluctantly oppose withdrawal because of the "dreadfulness" of withdrawal.
That dog won't hunt. The situation is this. The Iraq Debacle ensures dreadfulness whatever we do. The question now is how do we start moving to end our part of the dreadfulness.
As the noted extremist Fareed Zakaria wrote:
In order to begin reorienting America's strategy abroad, any new U.S. administration must begin with Iraq. Until the United States is able to move beyond Iraq, it will not have the time, energy, political capital or resources to attempt anything else of any great significance.
....The administration has — surprise — tried to play up fears of the consequences of a drawdown in Iraq (which is always described as a Vietnam-style withdrawal down to zero). It predicts that this will lead to chaos, violence and a victory for terrorists. When we listen to these forecasts, it is worth remembering that every administration prediction about Iraq has been wrong.
....As for the broader Sunni-Shiite civil war, even if we improve the security situation temporarily, once we leave the struggle for power will resume. At some point, the Shiites and the Sunnis will make a deal. Until then, we can at best keep a lid on the violence but not solve its causes. To stay indefinitely is simply to keep a finger in the dike, fearful of the outcome. Better to consolidate what gains we have, limit our losses, let time work for us and move on.
I think it is pretty clear who the extremists on Iraq and Iran are today. They oppose withdrawal from Iraq and urge attacks on Iran. Two of the extremists go by the name of Joe. Lieberman and Klein.
