I suppose they want to reduce troops and involvement considerably in 2008. To SELL that as a result of "victory" they play the surge:
Its "success" would make a partial withdrawal acceptable.

O'Hanlon may think: "With my brazen propaganda piece I help to get what we all want - the shift from disastrous escalation to the moderate Baker-Hamilton strategy. We can only afford this shift when we can sell it as a result of our strength and partial successes."

Another part of the strategy may be: Place the remaining US firepower in Iraq BETWEEN the rivalling factions. Make it clear for all fighting parties: You can only prevail if you side with US!
For that side of the strategy it's a good development that some Sunni insurgence groups now attack socalled AlQaida insurgents.
A gradual shift away from the US-empowered Shiite factions (which all are proIran) might also be part of a preparation of the planned air-assault on Iran.

Anyway, the USA - Republicans or Democrats - have no plan or intention to leave Iraq completely. US troups will dig in, deployed in the big "enduring bases", and from time to time lash out with superior firepower. And that will happen without asking the Iraqis or their government.

I guess: Neither Clinton nor Obama nor Edwards will really get the USA out of Iraq in the next term.

In this important respect there is a gap between the three frontrunners and the majority of their basis.

Posted at August 1, 2007 7:22 AM in response to Nonsense from O’Hanlon and Pollack