And Then What?
Should American troops stay in Iraq indefinitely?Extends no further than the 2008 elections is the key phrase here. It means, we want to be able to use the unpopularity of the war against our political enemies, but we don't actually have a solution to the problem. We prefer it get neatly wrapped up with this administration so that 1) it will be the fall guy for all the pre-war, war, and post-war problems, and 2) we won't have to address these important problems at all.
Nobody has ever wanted that. Our whole history shows that American troops have repeatedly pulled out of countries around the world when wars ended and enough order was restored to turn the country over to its own people.
The political conflict today is between people who think that pulling out should depend on conditions in Iraq, as those conditions unfold, rather than on arbitrary timetables created by politicians with no military experience, and with a time horizon that extends no further than the 2008 elections.
And this crowd is gaining a few Republican members, too. Sad.
Remember when Hillary outright complained about the possibility of inheriting the war?
"I think it's the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." [..] "This was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office."
No mention of what the implications for Iraq and America and the rest of the West for that matter -- would be. It's like "If we pull out, it's like a do-over. Like it never happened." except we get to say "bad! bad Bush!"
This isn't about what is the best thing to do. This is about what I think will get me in to office.