Over and over, the Commander in Chief says he will keep the troops in Iraq. The people have spoken, however and they expect a response.
The President was in Jordan today meeting with the Prime Minister of Iraq. In remarks captured by the press, he repeated his stay the course formula (without using the now taboo phrase of course). This time though he added a little qualifier. He denied looking for a "graceful exit" and insisted the United States would stay in Iraq until the job was done. Then I know I heard him say, "...As long as the government (of Iraq) wants us there." This is a new construction as far as I can tell. I don't know if it replaces or supplements the other condition he mentions frequently, that we will stay "...until the job is done." What job is that? Je ne sais quoi.
I wonder if Bush assumes that Maliki will be Prime Minister of Iraq forever, or has he entertained the real possibility that someone even closer to Sadr could one day be the head of the government of Iraq. But then, who the hell know what goes on in that little brain of his behind those beady little eyes.
Perhaps family friend James Baker does, which would come in handy if he wants to present recommendations that W will work with. According to David Sanger of the NY Times, Baker's commission will next week deliver to the President a report:
(T)hat would, at a minimum, leave a force of 70,000 or more troops in the country for a long time to come, to train the Iraqis and to insure against collapse of a desperately weak central government.
Newsweek's Michael Hirsch has reached a similar conclusion,and says that, "Iraq is not winnable or losable. All it is, in the best case, is manageable."
Atrios, skipper of a pretty good blog, has long argued that the United States will be in Iraq for a long while yet, at least until the 2008 election, inwhich the war/occupation will still be an issue. Scroll down here and see for yourself. Helen Thomas is likewise not optomistic.
On the other hand: Publc Opinion has expressed itself forcefully, via the recent election results, and has clearly indicated a strong desire to stop losing troops and wasting money in Iraq. Public Opinion is of course, used to being treated like a child and ignored. If Public Opinion had its way, for example, the billions for Iraq would be spent on health care in the USA. And the minmum wage would have been raised long ago. And civil unions, if not marriages, would be available to same sex couples in most of these United States.
So, yes, Public Opinion is used to disappointment, and rarely makes a fuss. I wonder, though, if there is a limit to such good behaviour. If W won't move to bring the troops home and stop throwing good money after bad, and if the Dems are unable or unwilling to force the issue, will Public Opinion at long last stand up for itself? And what would that look like?