So here's my question for those who oppose conditional withdrawal from Iraq: what is success? We're there now, we will, someday in the future, not be there. What is gained through prolonging the interim period? All I ever hear is that we must "finish the job", "win the peace", "not cut and run", and do a variety of other platitudinous things that don't tell me anything.
So when is the job finished? When is the peace won? Do you think we'll somehow crush the insurgency, all evidence of the last few years to the contrary? Will Iraq solve its ethnic conflicts if the US just looks over its shoulder long enough? Assuming we don't set conditions for withdrawal and just remain indefinitely, what are we looking for that'll allow us to wake up one day, judge the war a success, and mosey on back home to ticket tape parades?
This is a serious question. And I'd like some serious, thoughtful answers. I don't want to hear from withdrawal supporters telling me how hopeless the situation is, I want to hear those who think we should stay articulate what we're staying for, what the expended lives and treasure will gain, what conditions will prove the war a success. And then, when that's done, I'd like to know how making those same conditions the conditions for withdrawal would render them less achievable. The pro argument for withdrawal is generally that conditions would give the Iraqis something concrete to work towards and split off the nationalist, anti-American insurgency from the inter-ethnic, tribal insurgency. But we've heard all about that lately -- hell, even Chuck Hagel's saying it. Now I want to hear the best arguments from the other side.
