So, what we have in this discussion is proof that the priority isn't getting the job done, but getting out at any cost.

Getting out it part of the job. It's looking increasingly like the only remaining part of the job that is within our ability to accomplish.

And I want to vote Democrat why, again?

Seems to be a bit dismissive of the KIAs in that action...

Only the Taliban's KIA.

The "penetration" wasn't all that impressive

Seems to be a bit dismissive of the KIAs in that action...

Considering the recent penetration of a NATO base in Afghanistan, a little redeployment does not sound like such a bad idea.

The "penetration" wasn't all that impressive, it was a new, unfinished outpost that didn't have it's final defensive measures in place, and the Taliban was still repelled. Putting more troops there wouldn't help new construction.

"Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word 'withdrawal' in the written version, replacing the word 'presence'.

"Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.

"The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie.

"He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops.

"Significantly, Mr Rubaie was speaking immediately after a meeting with the senior Shiite clerical eminence, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

"But in subsequent remarks, Mr Rubaie rode back from a straightforward demand for a withdrawal deadline.

"He said the talks were focused on agreeing on 'timeline horizons, not specific dates', and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.

"The confusion reflects the dilemma facing Iraqi government leaders.

"On the one hand, many of them - particularly among the Shia factions - face a public which regards the US presence as a problem rather than a solution.

"With provincial elections coming up soon, they could be outflanked by more militant elements such as the supporters of cleric Moqtada Sadr, who wants American forces out now and opposes negotiations that would cover their continued presence.

"Yet the government knows that its own forces are not yet in a position to stand on their own against the two major challenges they face - the Sunni radicals of al-Qaeda and related groups, and the militant Shia militias which were partly suppressed in fierce battles this spring in Basra and Baghdad.

"Both groups could simply bide their time awaiting the American withdrawal before making a comeback drive."

Yes indeed. To which I will add only that exactly the same thing is true of our (current) Sunni friends in the Anbar Awakening -- who decided to ditch al-Qaida simply because they found out that (1) they couldn't stand the al-Qaidans' religious extremism, (2) they weren't getting much military help from them anyway (the Pentagon itself estimates that only 7% of the Iraqi Sunni fighters it's arrested are a-Q), and (3) they could make a dandy deal with the Bush Administration, in which we give them the money for weapons which they will pretend to use against a-Q (thus making the Bush Administration look better, which is why we're going along with the fraud) but which they actually intend to use against the Shiites the moment we leave. Some of the local sheikhs have been quite open about this in talking with American reporters.

So, as I say, let's all just wait until October. The odds are good that things will look radically different in Iraq after that.

Obvious follow-up question, James: just how do you define "rough planning guidance"? And how do you know that it differs (or to what extent it differs) from Obama's statement?

Personally, though, I'm waiting for the October elections: the ones which the Sadrists have a good chance of winning. There's a very good chance that all of our current debate over withdrawal timetables will become -- how can I put this? -- somewhat irrelevant after that, as so many previous debates over this war have become.

At some point, we are going to have to pack up, and the people of Iraq are going to have to decide if they want to sink or swim.

That noted far-left moonbat liberal, Dwight David Eisenhower warned us about the power of the military-industrial complex. He was a bright guy who was expert on the issue. We should keep his words in mind.

I think leaving is pretty much everybody's plan 'A.' The questions are how and when.

Ok, so replace "leaving in 16 months" and "staying after 16 months" in my original post if it makes you feel better. The point remains.

Obama is saying two contradictory things: That it'll happen within 16 months of his taking office and that we have to be prudent in doing so in "consult[ation] with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected."

How would that be different than saying it won't happen within 16 months, but that we will consult with commanders on the ground? It seems to me that both of you are saying the same thing, just from different half-full/half-empty perspectives. Obama is optimistic that we can withdraw after 16 months with the support of commanders on the ground, while you don't believe that can happen.

I'm reversing that emphasis and saying we should withdraw so long as our interests are protected and the troops can be redeployed safely. That's not conducive to timetables, other than as a rough planning guidance.

And you don't believe that is the situation now, now will it be in 16 months. I've asked before and I'll ask again, under what _specific_ conditions will you feel it is safe to leave?