One thing that really bothers me about the "withdraw from Iraq" debate is this sense of smell I have... this sense of political wind, a sense of reality that "geopolitics" has certain unspoken rules that those in power obey, end of discussion.
One such rule: you never remove a military base from a forward installation unless forced by military means to do so.
I believe there is ZERO chance of the democrats arguing for such removal, that is, one that includes the US bases in Iraq. Indeed, Obama recently used the phrase, "combat troops"... as in, "removing combat troops"... leaving what sort of troops? those in hibernation? Those not in "combat" mode, but ready, of course... the bases.
Those bases are staying. They want "emotional withdrawal"... not physical or actual withdrawal.
My question, do you want them to stay? If our Democratic Party gets a "withdrawal" that still leaves tens of thousands deployed to Iraqi Bases, will you consider that the victory you were hoping for?
I will add that I'm not even SURE if the bases should stay or not, I can see arguments on both sides. I believe they should probably be closed, that they will create more problems than they solve, but the real problem is the real debate isn't even possible.
When I discuss withdrawal, it's this emotional withdrawal I find we are talking about, not the mechanics of what withdrawal really MEANS... all the possible meanings are supposed to be more or less synonymous with each other, but of course they are not.
Leaving bases in the region would be a "victory" by many accounts... who said they want the job of getting shot at on a daily basis? Do the supporters of war need to stay in Iraq in that sense to "win"... no, of course not, the bases are sufficient. For us to withdraw and leave the bases is to pretend to have done the right thing. "Look, we stopped raping you, but we're going to sit right here in your living room in case we need to rape you again." That's not the same as, "we're leaving you alone now".