Staying the Course in Iraq?

Lately the clamor for some plan for withdrawal from Iraq has grown among not only critics of the war, but some moderate supporters who thought that there would be no war at this point. The response from the Bush administration has been calls to "stay the course" or "get the job done", but according to the British the administration has a very different definition of staying the course then perhaps you or I do. This comes from today's Washington Post:

"The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked 'Secret -- UK Eyes Only,' said 'emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006,' allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesperson in Baghdad."

Not to be too cynical, but "middle of next year" corresponds neatly to the run-up to mid-term elections. The timing could be coincidental, but really...

First of all, thank goodness for whoever is doing all the leaking over there on the other side of the pond. If it weren't for this little leaker, we might know considerably less about what our own administration is up to. Obviously, we are not seeing secret memos circulating in our administration's inner circle, nor are we likely too. But although the British are not a party to what's going on in the White House inner sanctum, it would be a mistake to think that the British are far off base as to the administration's plans for war, considering they are our closest ally in the region and a major party to the security and reconstruction effort. We could hardly be making plans to draw down forces in Iraq without the British knowing quite a bit about it.

Second, I think this is yet another example of the famous Bush "resolve", which is somewhat more flexible then Bush gets credit for. While it's true that he has showed famous resolution in some of his political efforts(see Social Security), the truth is Bush is perfectly willing to back away from political statements or gambles once they prove to be a liability. What has become truly Bush-ian is his ability to do it while looking like he's not changing a thing.

To be fair, no administration, Democrat or Republican, would admit that it's time to cut and run in Iraq, even if they believed that to be the case. Regarldess of the course of action, the language would be all about staying the course and seeing that the job is done. But considering that Bush has essentially defined his presidency around this war, his language and actions regarding Iraq are open to a little more scrutiny.

How do I feel about it? I do believe that the amount of time we can remain much longer in Iraq is extremely limited. Certainly our forces provoke and act as targets for insurgents. But at the same time, leaving anytime soon-or at all-may be a recipe for civil war. The truth may be, as I've suspected for some time now, that there's simply nothing that can be done. That it will play out the way it's going to play out, regardless of what we do at this point.