WITHDRAWAL....Why were all three of the leading Dem candidates at last night's debate unwilling to promise a full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013? James Joyner takes a guess:There's no doubt that the major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomi...

Second, a hell of a lot of us who want the troops out of the rest of Iraq as quickly as possible are wide open to leaving a large troop presence in Kurdish Iraq -- our one success story in the region. There are several good strategic reasons for doing that.

As for coming public opinion: I agree with Eugene Robinson that the Dems need to stop skiffle-dancing around and say explicitly both WHAT they're going to do about Iraq and WHY they're going to do it. I think there would be quite a lot of tolerance for reasoned arguments on that subject both among Democratic voters and among voters in general -- if the Dems show signs of having tried to put in serious thought on it. Unfortunately, as Matt Yglesias pointd out a couple of years ago, the Democratic party still seems to retain an allergy -- picked up as a result of the Vietnam fight -- toward seriously thinking about foreign-policy issues at all.

A definitive pronouncement would be naive at this point I would think. Initiating withdrawal now, as has been said, will take time or that could be put off until December at the earliest (should be longer IMO), and see the development of the "surge" strategy that whether or not a smashing success it still had successful results. This is not nothing and should be taken into consideration.

Inaction or Action regardless, each will cause a reaction

If all we are doing is discussing degrees of "ending" the war, beginning a withdrawal/redeployment "over the horizon"/E&E there will only be one end. Iraq does not have an "end," at least in the sense that "end" implies.

We continue with the surge as is and allow for an assessment again, a comparison would be apples to apples, not the apples and oranges attempt. However what is successful needs to be acknowledged or commended while being recognized for what it is...degrees.

There are paths from the east that are patiently used and tended; we need to be very wary of them widening into major thoroughfares, another one of those reactions.

Apologies for whatever this was...

Methinks what's changed is that the Dems have looked at Congress' approval rating since those elections and come to suspect that the conclusions they drew about their victory in last year's elections may have been in error.

Presently, the Democratic party is a one issue party. And that issue is Iraq. Part of the party wants everybody out yesterday, the other part a draw down and pullback from the areas of ethnic fighting. If you look at the recent Gallup poll there are quite a few more republicans giving approval to the the job the dems are doing in congress than dems are. Dems still lead repubs by at least 15 points for the 2008 election and that hasn't changed for quite awhile. All the dem candidates know they just can't pull out all the troops anytime soon. It is fun seeing them dance around that fact so as not to anger the lets leave yesterday crowd.

I think the Senate & the Democratic Presidential front runners have accurately assessed the mood of the moderate center. Otherwise, they would have just refused to pass any funding bill for the war w/o withdrawal timetables. They aren't so afraid of what the GOP will say. "It's what the voters will do, Stupid."

Many of us believe it just might be as disastrous to leave without thinking about the consequences as it was to go to war without thinking it through at the start. We created hell for the Iraqis. Seems like we owe them more than an , "Oops! Sorry. Good luck." Isn't it time we maybe turn over a few of the $billions we now use to kill people (& make US contractors even richer) & give it to the people to rebuild some of what we destroyed? The contractors we hired sure aren't doing it.
]
And I rant. On a side note, anyone paying attention to the Senate resolution that suggests a partitioning of Iraq along sectarian lines? The Kurds have already started by signing an oil agreement with a major oil company. Ya know, maybe the Iraqis can sort out their own problems w/o Uncle Sam dictating to them. What an interesting concept.

Myself, I don't think that "most Americans," or at least the non-partisan center, are committed either to staying in or getting out of Iraq.

What they want, above all, is to believe that, whichever policy we follow, it's being handled competently, by leaders who deserve to have our soldiers' lives in their hands.

That is why the public doesn't trust Bush -- they don't believe that of him any more. But they don't necessarily believe that the Dems are competent either.

On that theory, perhaps the Dems are playing against stereotype in order to convince the public that they're putting wise policy above the wishes of their partisan base. Like Sister Souljah, but with dead troops.

I don't think the aspirants are retreating so much as letting the cat out of the bag.

Definitely something to this. I agree Clinton has been especially coy on this and Obama and Edwards have been implying they'd go for a quick withdrawal without quite saying so.

Sen. Clinton (IMO the inevitable nominee) has been trying to have it both ways. On the one hand she wants to remove U. S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible. On the other hand, that task won't be accomplished during her first term. If she's very careful no one will notice that, once the persiflage is removed, that position is hard to distinguish from that of the Bush Administration.

Y'know, from every indication, Americans still hold the same opinions they held when they voted in a Dem majority to Congress.Why the Dems (both in Congress and POTUS-wannabees) think those opinions have somehow magically changed since November is beyond me.

Methinks what's changed is that the Dems have looked at Congress' approval rating since those elections and come to suspect that the conclusions they drew about their victory in last year's elections may have been in error.