Your comment that I painted the issue as too black and white is probably true. My guess is that some of the R’s will stick with the must win position, but a lot will begin to move toward a more pragmatic position. Conversely not all of the D’s will be screaming rabidly for immediate pull out.

My hope is that even thought it will be difficult to come to any definitive conclusion about the success of the surge cool heads will prevail and progress will be made toward figuring out how to disengage in a way that doesn’t leave a total mess. I personally don’t possess the wisdom to articulate a good set of solutions, but the two opposite extreme solutions that are currently repeated over and over don’t hold the answer.

It seems like something along the line that tutakai presented in his blog moves in the right direction.

http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_may2007.htm

PK, while there is “truth” to that, I don’t paint it as black and white. If May-Sept reports out like April did, R’s will not be as dogmatic as you’re phrasing it.

Wouldn’t it be a novel idea to actually start talking about some middle set of options that fall between pull out totally right now and stay for the next 10 or 20 years.

Already started: http://tutakai.typepad.com/tutakai/2007/05/a_moderate_iraq.html

Neither side has a plan, nor does it seem likely that they will have one.

We probably won’t see a settlement of this whole thing until after a new President is sworn in January 2009. By that time our Army and Marines will be totally worn down, and worn out from too many cycles through the theatre and we will have no choice but to pull out as fast as possible.

Wouldn’t it be a novel idea to actually start talking about some middle set of options that fall between pull out totally right now and stay for the next 10 or 20 years. Oh well, that would be asking a bit much of our political leadership.