I think this is a transitory stage in public opinion. 

Nobody is suggesting that the war will be "won" in the next two years.  Sensible withdrawal strategies are either event-driven or based on some reasonable prognostication of the benefits that accrue from additional time in-country.

Public opinion will either move in the direction that says that the important events have already occurred (Saddam, WMD, elections, etc.) or the public will decide that there are important events yet to occur.

The administration problem is that it hasn't framed the debate this way, and I don't expect this to change.  I think we're re-basing from Saudi to provide long term security for oil and biddable regimes ("democracies") in the Middle East, but the administration refuses to say this, leaving the public to dine on vague and unsatisfying pronouncements of "progress".

The progress comes at a horrendous cost, and there will never be a satisfying summation of the cost/benefit, so the "timetable" will just accelerate.  By 2006, the public will be squarely behind withdrawal, and the administration will pull most of the troops out.

The acceleration in public demand for U.S. troop withdrawal will come when and if Iraq erupts into a full blown civil war with us in the middle taking it from all sides.  I don't doubt that most polls then will find the majority of Americans saying, "F*** Em", and demanding our people be pulled out.  Most people won't care about any "we broke it, we fix it" philosophy and most people won't care about the "poor Iraqi people".

People want to pull out in a way that looks like a win. With Bush in office, any attempts at discussion will only be politicized. It is impossible to have a national debate about issues that matter as long as he is in power. That's why our focus should be delegitimizing him, holding him accountable, demanding leadership and decrying his divorcement from reality. Only when he is forced to back down will we be able to move forward.

This post initially struck me as a good example of why we Dems are in 2d place in a two party race: developing positions "to the polling."  By following the irrational and mercurial views of prospective voters, we have managed to convince a fair number that we don't really stand for anything.

Of course, Reed goes on to signal an understanding that we need to develop leadership positions, but it's all framed by the two extremes that the polls indicate are the limits of the public's tolerance.

Let's start by asking what's the right thing to do in Iraq?  The answer to me has a lot to do with what do the Iraqi people and their leaders want.  But in any case, we need to start with first principles ("What do we Dems stand for?") and work from there.  Doesn't mean we ignore the polls, just that we need a strongly principled position that is not only consistent with our values, but helps to demonstrate those values in a specific and concrete way.

In many districts the 2006 election will be about Iraq policy, Afghan Policy, US Military status -- size, numbers of troops, length of deployment, pay and benefits, and overall costs of Bush's policy.  Democratic candidates will not be looking at national polls on this -- they will be informed by state and local polls -- and thus what they say and how they ren may not be the same across the country. 

I think some reasonably general critique of Military goals vis a vis Iraq needs to be high on the Democratic list.  Aside from his overly general romantic talk about Freedom and Liberty -- bush has never really provided a vision of the goals for which he is using the US Military in "nation or country building" -- and that deliquency needs to be discussed.  Candidates need to ask if the use of so much of the US Military is appropriate, and they need to ask about costs.  Just How much of our common treasury do we want to use to make Iraq into a Democracy?  Where is the budget?  Will it take 12 years as Rumsfeld says-- then we need a 12 year budget plan.  Now, How are you going to raise the money?  Is Iraqi democracy a higher priority than some of our domestic needs?  More important than tax cuts for the wealthy?  -- Democrats can ask all these questions in different ways and get traction, assuming Public Opinion keeps tracking in the same direction as it currently seems to  be. 

We do need some national figures who are not running for office who can make the case on some of these issues.  I think the damage done to the Military -- without any plan to repair it -- by wearing out equiptment, loss of men and officers, the very low rate of recruitment, and much else -- needs to be the overall National Conversation supported by Democratic spokespersons. 

But I certainly don't favor offering a withdrawal plan or schedule because I don't think that is a winning argument.  Yes -- withdrawal ought to be the goal eventually, but the key is to present a vision of a political settlement, and suggest that something other than US Military Patrols and convoy's might be necessary to achieving that vision.  The focus needs to be on a livable political reality and how to get there -- not just on military operations. 

Ultimately, the US withdrew from Vietnam because Congress defunded Military Operations, beginning with major cuts in the late winter -- early spring of 1973.  I suspect one could compaign on "corruption" and the rip off of the US Treasury -- and build up support for congress taking control of the purse and the costs of the programs supported -- and make considerable electorial headway among independent voters who seem to be less supportive of Bush than even Democrats.  Pointing at Republicans who have failed to do oversight, hold hearings, be tough with the money and all -- that could be very productive. 

But I also expect that between now and 2006 we could easily have another attack such as the 911 one -- but with different tactics and targets -- or we could have a major flu epidemic for which the medical infrastructure is illprepared, or any number of other things could come undone -- presenting cautions as well as opportunities for the Democrats.  Or the Housing Bubble could burst, or the economy could tank -- whole lot of possibilities. 

Ike promised that he'd get us out of Korea. Nixon had (he said) a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. They both won. When the public sours on a military exercise, it sours.

The public has not only come to realize that Bush has bungled the war but they've also accepted the fact that he lied to get us involved in the first place. We went into Iraq (allegedly) to depose Saddam. That mission has been accomplished.  Had we pulled out pronto and dropped 40 or so billion on the Iraqis to clean up and rebuild, we'd have done what we said we wanted to do, cheaper and with fewer deaths, less suffering, and less expense. The longer we stay, the less defensible the war becomes. We aren't in Iraq so that no Iraqi need never suffer again. We actually don't know why we're in Iraq. The people urging us to stay, I bet, don't know why we're there either.

Some interesting historical context, from of all places, the Socialist Workers website. In 1967, a split emerged among opponents of the war between those who advocated Negotiations Now and those who favored an immediate pullout. Those favoring Negotiations Now were liberals like Arthur Schlesinger Jr, while student radicals in SDS favored immediate withdrawal.

In the current context, the Negotiations Now position recognizes that a glorious military success is no longer likely, and a political settlement with native Iraqi insurgents has to be pursued. We see the first inklings that the Bush administration is recognizing this.

The ultimate question isn't what the American people want. Three years ago 85 percent of them wanted this war. Oops. The question should be framed as what do they need, and how do we achieve that goal. The WaPo can then propagandize that as they did the war.

The major problem with discussing the Iraqi situation is that it is far more complex than which thugs rule from Baghdad, and ultimately supply the Iraqi oil to the markets. We seem to think that we as a soveriegn nation have a right to dictate to the Iraqi's what their soveriegnty is and what it should like. Sounds good over here in the US of A, but put the shoe on the other foot and "that don't sound too good."

Unfortunately the occupation has exacerbated the political and cultural differences betwen the Iraqi people, which leads one to conclude that the Neo-Cons are at least consistent in their ability to polarize populations, and so one must not overlook the implications of their policy implementations, either at home or abroad. How we manage to breech the divide in America is how we might breech the divide in Iraq.

First off I would think that we need to define what our strategic interests in Iraq really are. So far we haven't been informed by our government what they really are. The problem with a democracy is that it requires an informed public to function, and that is one thing sadly missing from the equation even today. It may be usefull to quit using the MsM polls as a basis for the discussion as they are part of the problem, and have been for years.

Perhaps we need to look at it in a different way altogether, such as one looks at in putting out a fire. Fires require heat, fuel and oxygen. Remove one of the three and you have no fire. Iraq seems to have oil, and proximity to Israel and the Caspian Sea. Throw in the Muslim faith and we have a catalyst for fire with the Christian West. I think that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is the primary heat source.

If one were take this analogy a step further then visualize oil producers as liquid oxygen and oil consumption as grease and greed as the oxygen. The Neo-con position is to take control of the oil producers. Oops.

I know this isn't really a solution to withdrawing from Iraq, but then we invaded in a vacume and are being confronted with withdrawal from a pressure cooker. We need to define the pressure cooker and then we can open the lid, after diffusing the pressure. If we don't everyone in the kitchen is going to get burned.

What is needed to address the Iraq mess is a real plan.  Let me outline the elements of a real plan.

First, you must be clear on what your objective(s) is (are).  It would help if our leadership would sort these out for us.  Most of the objectives appear to have unstated subtexts which confuse even the best planning.  And we don't need any more of the 'mission drift' which has characterized the administration's approach.  I would suggest that a still worthwhile objective is to leave Iraq as a viable democracy defending itself from both internal and external threats.

 Second, you must subdivide the objective into the subtasks necessary for its achievement.  Thus the building of competent defense and police forces should be subtasks.  The building of a minimally competent bureaucracy is another subtask.  Establishment of functioning elected legislative bodies is another subtask. Provision of adequate infrastructure is yet another.

Within each of these there are other tasks to be accomplished.  All the subtasks must be sequenced to support the subsequent goals.  Each of the goals along the way must be defined in measurable terms such as "29 brigades of the Iraqi Army have demonstrated both operational competence and mission motivation."

For each of the subtasks, responsibilities must be assigned and accepted,  resource requirements determined and committed, and informed target dates for accomplishment established.

Finally, the whole plan must be managed.  Since the plan entails great uncertainty, management must be adaptive to adjust subtasks, resources, and dates to assure progress toward the objective.  Management must be prepared to modify the plans.  Reviews of progress must be regular, open and honest.  Results must be precise and not sugar-coated or spun.

Honesty would do a lot to gain support for any such plan. Public acceptance of accountability would also help the administration.  (Leaking another story to Lisa Myers on how a Homeland Defense alert was the result of poor analysis in the CIA does not help.  Its timing appeared to be intended to remind us that the whole Iraq problem was the result of poor performance by the CIA not the adminstration.  And this just before Bush makes a new speech on the subject of where has been and where he is going.)

I do believe that if we can't, or won't, make a plan and execute it; then the only other solution is to abandon Bush's Iraq adventure.  First, however, we must insist that there be a real plan made by people who understand the process I've outlined.  We've used the process to accomplish challenging tasks in the past.

Our failure to plan is a plan to fail -- but that is the story of Bush's life.

Actually, what this American person wants is a way to get paragraph breaks into his posts on this goddamned site. Others seem to have solved this problem, but my paragraph breaks are simply ignored. Any help out there?

Anon -- that's a plan?

Pull out the troops and void all contracts. Any future contracts will be bid and transparent for X period of time.
 

Let the UN liase with the Iraqi govt to development a security plan.

Have the Peace Corp occupy the country after soldiers leave.  

Yes, it's clear that both the administration and the public have been holding out for a deus ex machina that ain't coming.

The sooner people realize that there are no good choices, only less terrible ones, and they understand that Bush and his cronies are to blame for this state of affairs, the better.

Squeaky,

Not really.  It is a definition of a plan by suggesting the elements of what is necessary to have a real plan.

It's what this administration failed to do when they went to war and have failed to address ever since it was clear that what they had bitten off was not at all like what they expected.

 Planning is not their forte.