First Rule of Iraq Withdrawal - Don't Talk About It?

While I understand the GOP rhetoric about withdrawing from Iraq equalling "surrender to the terrorists" is completely political, what I find simply amazing is that by inference their position means that we can never talk openly about withdrawing.  If the mere mention of a possible US withdrawal means that even one terrorist is 'emboldened', the US has literally positioned itself to stay permanently, or to withdraw in secret, which isn't possible if we can't even broach the subject.

There's a lot of talk about the GOP advocating "more of the same" and that they're committing us to another 3 years (minimum) of occupation, both of which frame it nicely, but the "3 years, minimum" has a much greater impact, in my opinion.  It defines, in a sense, a timetable, and it's a GOP approved timetable.

more...

I don't pretend to know much about political strategy, but I do know when I read or hear something that causes my brain to say "Whaaa?" and that's what happened when the GOP Iraq policy was framed as "3 more years, minimum".  Maybe we can't talk aobut setting a timetable, but we sure as hell can, and should, talk about the GOP's "3 years, minimum" timetable.  If nothing else, I want to hear them defend it, or deny it'll be 3 years.  I want to hear what, exactly, is going to be the "thing" that allows us to talk about withdrawing.  What's the marker?  Which corner are we waiting to turn?  Which terrorist is the final target?