Timetables? Hold on a minute.

Remember last year's NYT op-ed piece by the two guys from the liberal Brookings Institution who returned from a trip to Iraq suggesting that the war could be won? Well, along with Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack (not conservatives, by any stretch) have just returned from another trip, and while they acknowledge the security gains that some have argued will benefit Obama's position on troop withdrawal, they say not so fast:

ALMOST everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq. The question is what to do about it.

Democrats led by Barack Obama want to take a peace dividend and withdraw all combat brigades by May 2010. Republicans like John McCain want to keep troops in Iraq until conditions on the ground signal the time is ripe. And now the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has endorsed a timetable for withdrawal, though he seems to favor a somewhat slower pace than the Democrats propose.

If the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we should go. But this would be a bad deal for both Iraqis and Americans. Iraq is indeed much more secure than it was two years ago, thus it seems safe to suggest timing goals for significant withdrawals. Yet having recently returned from a research trip to Iraq, we are convinced that a total withdrawal of combat troops any time soon would be unwise.

Read the whole thing. Oh, and don't miss the comments. As one might guess, most of the Times' readers take what you might call a dim view of the authors' opinions. My personal favorite:

These mens' opinions are worse than useless. They are traitors to our peace and should be vilified.

I was, frankly, unaware that "our peace" demanded allegiance. Thanks for enlightening me, Rance Spergl. Your tolerance for the opinions of others is remarkable.

(h/t)

Posted by: Sean M. at 02:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.