People with solemn faces..like Brit Hume or Lou Dobbs or even David Gergen might give you that solemn look, one eyebrow slightly raised ..to suggest that Barack Obama might be just a bit "one bridge too far" by holding to a 16 month withdrawal plan.
Maybe you've had the thought that Barack might lighten his load by saying ... 16... 18... whatever it takes to do it right and safely.
Have you noticed that all of this is worrying is contigent on something.
That "something" is of great significance. The operating assumption is that Iraq in 16 months will be much like Iraq today. McCain seems to think so. "It might be too soon. We might give up the gains we have made."
Why would Iraq be in a similar state to today's 16 months from now?
IF Iraq IS in a similar state to today's situation in 16 months... what logical conclusions would one draw from that ?
If you gave the current government of Iraq "16 months notice" of intent to redeploy, and began to implement it.. why do we presume that Iraq remains frozen in 2008 as America enters 2010?
Its worse than that. Read on.
Sixteen months from when? Mid to late January 2009.
That's over 21 months from this moment. From today.For the first 6 months of this timeline starting today.. no reduction in US forces required by an Obama regime will have occured. Perhaps Bush-Petraeus will make some. Perhaps not.
So the Talabani-Maliki regime has 6 months to get mentally adjusted to a situation that they are actively calling for now. It would appear that the mental-spiritual-morale based problems with US withdrawal have been either already absorbed, or pitifully unconsidered.
After 6 more months of NOT OBAMA governance from Washington we might assume greater or lesser amounts of progress on the "improved" military situation... assuming continued US forces doing what they do now and Iraqi forces doing what they do now.
But Wait! Why should we assume that in six months Iraq's armed forces will be pretty much what they are now?
Better yet... Why should we assume that in 21 months Iraq's government will be as tenous in its grasp of security and sovereignty?
16 months is 21 months.
21 months is damned close to two years.
How much expense, effort and sacrifice can be expected from a nation and its people in close to two years when it's required?
21 months after Pearl Harbor what progress had been made in America's ability to defend itself at home, or to enable it to project military power overseas? Consider that the opposition of that time were highly organized nation states with a full range of military capabilities.
Iraq's new... "replacement" army and police forces have had a very rough start. But it's 5 years in...and we are talking almost 2 more to go.
Do we assume that Iraq continues to train and equip existing and growing forces? Do we assume that Iraq's ability to defend the current constitution and its administration grows daily? Should we not assume that 21 months from now Iraq will be better galvanized in defense of its independence?
If America chooses McCain, and hangs around waiting for "benchmarks" to be achieved, the current government of Iraq will look increasingly dependent on the US, more easily perceived as puppets facilitating a permanent occupation.. and not deserving of public support. The development of Iraq's capability to defend itself will be fruitless.
Proud Iraqi's will not serve an endless occupation. ( Mercenary thugs might.. but they tend to spend away public support.)
If America makes its intention to withdraw clear and time stamped, as Obama intends, then Iraq will prove to itself and the world ..one of two things.
Either there will be insufficient support for the current constitution and regime. Perpetual occupation will be tempting if not necessary.
Or the prospect of ending occupation and re-asserting national independence and sovereignty will appeal to sufficient numbers of Iraqi's to allow national institutions and defence against "irregulars" to prevail.
If Iraq's government is not better prepared to define and defend the common good in 21 more months .. given the 40+ months behind it..
it will be because of its association with America ..not in spite of it.
The Maliki - Obama confluence is vital. It is the "polite" option where America leaves because it was asked to.
Not leaving when asked... will fuel opposition, resistance and continued occupation with losses.
Not leaving when asked will result in not leaving at all. For some "geo-political, energy centered, world power think tanks" this may be intentional.
If America does withdraw rather neatly in Obama's first 16 months it will be because Iraqi's wanted it to happen.
If America cannot withdraw rather safely and neatly in Obama's first 16 months.. what would the point of staying be exactly?