James Baker III makes this common point about setting a timetable for an exit from Iraq in today's Washington Post:
In fact, the [Iraq Study Group] report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates.
So what?
Without going into the merits of the argument, let's assume it's true. It is also true, as we have seen since the current "surge" began, that an increase in troop strength causes the insurgents to go into hiding and/or take their tactics to parts of the country where US troop presence is lower.
That being the case (and it is), what the hell are we doing? We can't leave, because the enemy will know we are leaving or are gone and will create havoc once we're gone. We can't stay forever because our moral justification (if we ever had one) deteriorates with each passing day and the Iraqis want us to leave. We can't increase our troop levels to quell violence country-wide because (a) we don't have the troops and (b) we don't have the political desire.
The Bush backers tell us that we just need to tamp down the violence long enough for the Iraqi government to get a foothold (which will take too long, if it's even possible) and make the political deals that they need to make (which they don't really want to make at all). But those same insurgents who are laying low while we are "surging" will lay low during any period of Iraqi governmental assertiveness (such as it is or will be) as well, and will come back, with greater strength and in greater numbers once they decide the time is right.
The definition of poor leadership is being left with no good options, and we have none.