http://www.electorials.com

...is there anyone out there asking how this move will improve the US security posture in the region, long term national security, or long term strategic interests in the Middle East and around the world, especially when al Qaeda is still active in I.....

I cant speak for Hillary of course, and I am not addressing any specific proposal, but the general notion of a phased draw-down seems to make obvious sense to me. To such an extent that I really wonder about the sincerity, or common sense of people who keep trying to suggest that the Dems need to advocate immediate total withdrawl or else agree with Bush - with no other position making sense.

It has been several years now that Bush's strategy has been "they stand up, we stand down". Seems like a reasonable approach, but part of the reason it hasnt worked out very well is that they are not standing up, so we dont then stand down. An obvious fix is to simply reverse the order. We stand down, thereby forcing them to stand up.

It is not just a miliatry strategy. What they really need to do, everybit as importantly as the military effort, is to stand up and embrace the challenge of effecting a political solution. Without that, there is absolutely no hope for peace as far as the eye can see.

They need to amend the constitution, as was promised to the Sunnis as a condition for their support of the document, they need to come to grips with what the long-term status will be with regards to federalism, and they need to work out a means so that all communities will benefit from the oil revenues. Just to name the most obvious ones.

Not only have they been overly relying on us to bear the military burden, our open-ended committment has allowed them to put off consideration of all these political efforts.

Starting a process of leaving now - starting now, but doing so gradually (though not slowly) will give them a chance to move forward with all speed on these fronts. As we draw down, our remaining forces can help in the process, but without the reality of our leaving, the process seems never to get underway.

No guarantees of course. But it seems indisputable that the status quo is unacceptable and deteriorating. And unless we could surge in a hundred thousand troops or more, for a long time, basically restarting an occupation from scratch, then I dont think this little surge will do much to change the dynamics.

Whatever you think of this approach, I dont see any justification for claiming that it is not a strategy. Nor do I understand the motivations of those who ignore this approach and simply claim that what the Dems say should somehow force them to advoacte immediate total withdrawl.

It seems clear to me that this would politically unhelpful (the Kossacks already hate her; and this could alienate the liberal hawks). That suggests to me that she thinks this is good policy.

She is willing to screw our President, she is willing to screw our troops and now she has shown she is willing to screw her own party and her base of supporters....

No snark, please. I'm asking the question sincerely.

Probably true. But I would be willing to bet that any legislator who is perceived to be abandoning the well being of the troops for their own political gain will have problems.

Hillary's problem is that she is defending a mistake. She made a mistake and she should just simply admit to it and move on.

If she is defending this mistake in order to garner republic votes in the general election she is either being misled by her advisers or she is using poor judgement. The crazies will never support her. She needs to be told that by her advisers or come to that realization herself, now.

The core of crazies in this country who still support the war on Iraq are not going to make any difference in the general election. They are, or will be irrelevant. So no one should be catering to them in the primaries.

MARKOS is unhappy with Hillary. Too much backbone.

That's Instapundit. Well......