Heh. This just looks dumb to me.

Thanks for the link! This is entertaining, if dumb. Put up or shut up time for Dems

John, With all due respect, I strongly disagree that even a party-line vote would be a Democratic Party propoganda victory. Think about this; a very simple resolution asking for immediate withdrawl. Even if the Dems vote party-line, that confirms -in hard copy- that their (well...) party line is immediate and unconditional withdrawl. They will have, in fact, literally voted for for a cut'n'run during the middle of a war. First corollary: Democrats can't be trusted during a war, and where have we heard that before recently? Yes, we all know Iraq isn't Vietnam, but it will be hard to avoid drawing analogies, especially since the Dems have been the ones pushing the analogies. Simply put: this very basic, yes-or-no, ain't-no-nuance-here, can't-spin-it, up-or-down vote will put the Democratic Party on record as abandoning the Iraqi people. Given (as you say) a straight party-line vote. This would be a great political gift to the GOP on the same order as the post-Civil War line "all Democrats are rebels and traitors," or the post-WW2 line "all Democrats are soft on Communism." Mind you, I find this a not-unmixed blessing, since I prefer two healthy parties to keep everyone (relatively) honest, but -alas- the current Dem leadership seems more interested in cheap tricks than principled positions. Then again, if they were pursuing principled positions, we wouldn't be discussing this, would we, hm? On the other hand, if the Dems fink out (which I expect), they will most likely retort "we didn't want an immediate withdrawl; we wanted one as soon as practical." To which the Bush administration will reply "Fine! That's what we want, too! Glad you agree with us!" This shoots their whole approach down, since they want to advocate an immediate withdrawl without seeming to advocate an immediate withdrawl. And, yes, the GOP party discipline seems terribly absent, but fine. Let's see how many RINOs go wobbly on the war. Then the Bush administration will have a solid year to publicize that fact before next year's elections. You think the congresscritters don't know that? But hey, that's just my fifty-cents worth. :)

Casey - I caveat *all* my politics with "Tin Ear".

I have not seen any real discussion of withdrawal from the Dems which respects the concept that we cannot predict dates upon which the necessary environments will be obtained. We will leave when we can leave stability behind, and the biggest problem we face now is articulating that clearly.

1) This has become so politicized that 'real' debate cannot be had in the US. Positions have become means of scoring political points, and no longer are actual, moral positions taken. 2) Alan, if you follow the Strategy Page casualty list of the Balkans you'll find that the casualties are there. They're just not sustained by Americans/Peacekeepers(Feb this year a major uprising occured and resulted in many deaths and destruction/damage of a few famous churches). Ergo it's not talked about, but it is there, mon ami. 3) Alan, the conditions you have spoken of do exist. What they aren't is rock hard and quantitative. And I think I don't need to go into the necessity of fluidity here. A stable gov't capable of handling the security situation---that's been iterated as a withdrawl requirement. (Sorry, not sniping. Just trying to say that what the war opposers/Dems are asking for exists and can be found if they look outside of the reporting by the usual suspects.). 4) 'Withdrawl' is code for declare victory and come home, regardless of whether the political end we sought is realized or not---the whole point of this or any other war. It is 'cut and run'. Or at least 'cut'. 5) Can the reps win '06 and '08 with the above def'n strategy? Depends. Who mounts the more effective media campaing for the hearts and minds here will determine that. Seeing as how the negative side is the base-line for discussion I'd say it's not likely that the reps will maintain house and senate majorities. ANd this isn't blaming the media, thought their handling of the matter is part of INfo-War. BH Liddel-Hart has written on the matter, as well as other 'grand strategists'. I'm stealing from them and not talking out of my own butt. 6) How can people civily say they oppose the war? SImiple. Just do that. Say that they oppose the war and leave it at that. Say that they want the troops out because they opposed the war from minute one(or whatever minute they decided to be against it). No phoney baloney rationalizations. But, that's political suicide. SO it'll never happen. Ah, if only every American liberal were as honest and transparent as you, Alan. They'd almost be tolerable :). (fleeing for the safety of my rock).

Good responses, ry. I do tihnk it would do a great service to have a debate on how to know when it is time to know it is over over there and I think a lot of what you wrote serves as a decent framework.

replace to with for where appropriate---gawd, the 'teachers' around here are going to have a field day with me.

Gee couldn't I just throw 'N@zi' into the mix here and get banned from the thread to save me from the indignity? We need a ruling? Umpire!