I think that many progressives here are expecting too much when they demand complete withdrawal from Iraq as soon as a Democratic President takes office in 2009 (should he or she win the '08 election).
If we withdraw completely from Iraq, there will be chaos and disaster, even worse than the clusterfuck that we are experiencing right now thanks to Bushco.
There are alternatives to a complete cessation of US involvement in Iraq. One sensible option would be the willingness of the more progressive European governments to provide peacekeeping and humanitarian aid once a less belligerent Democrat is the President.
As John Kerry so eloquently argued in the 2004 elections, we need to engage our allies more in fighting against terrorism and Al Qaeda in the Middle East as well.
It is clear that the American people want a change in foreign policy in regards to providing security and to fighting the terrorists. For 8 years, the Commander-in-Thief was given a blank chank in regards to foreign policy. In the likelihood of a Democrat administration coming in 2009, we can show that we can be just as credible, if not more so than the Rethugs when it comes to providing security and defeating the terrorists.
One major gaffe by the Bushies was to distract us from the war on terror in Afghanistan and to attack Iraq. That being said, since we are already in Iraq, it is the responsibility of the US to ensure that a transition to a democratic and progressive government so that Iraq can be an ally in the war on terror.
So, a 2009 withdrawal date by a (hopefully likely) Democratic President is unrealistic in my view (and to the 3 front-runners as well). A residual fighting force in Iraq will have to stay to ensure peace and security in the Middle East.