My fear is that the "elected Iraqi Government," as an agent of the US occupation, lacks sufficient credibility to negotiate with anyone...certainly not Iraqi insurgents. Probably decades are needed before that can happen.

What is needed here is a credible third party (yes Dorothy, we have fallen this far, and are no longer in Kansas). Who could that be? Hmmm. Opps, I forgot, we are dealing with Arabs here--they, quite understandably, hold everyone suspect.

Could even Mohammed himself pull this off? Methinks not....

Better break out my good book--turning to the Revelations part.

Barnaby

Or will there be enough whose goals are so extreme that they can't be included left outside to keep the pot stirred.

Maybe I've worked in business too long, but where I work when people talk about plans and timelines, those always refer to specific deliverables and measures.

Throughout the entire discussion of the Iraq situation, I don't believe that I have ever heard anyone discuss an actual plan. I've heard a lot of rhetoric. I've heard a lot of ideas. But so far I have not seen a single plan.

When Mr. Conason says "All the plans the Democrats have offered on Iraq rely on wishful thinking. Here's one that might actually work" -- he's not talking about a plan. He's talking about an idea. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it could form the basis of a plan. But it's not a plan. When we call things "plans" that really aren't, it cheapens the word to the point that it becomes meaningless.

When people say things such as "when the Iraqis stand up, we will be able to stand down," what exactly does that mean? What does that translate into in terms of actual measures, milestones, and deliverables? Does "standing up" mean that attacks and bombings are reduced to a certain frequency? Does it mean that a certain number of Iraqi batallions can operate on their own? The president's idea (idea, not plan) seems to be that we will continue to do what we are doing, and then eventually things will be "better." But what does "better" mean from an operational viewpoint? How do we measure "better?" Without some understanding of that, how would we know that ANY plan were successful?

We do see occasional pieces of a plan. For example, the elections are a kind of plan. That's good. We know what comes first, second, third, and so on. The results might not be what we hoped for, but at least we know when something has been done.

So I'm still waiting for a plan. Any plan. We have enough ideas already.

Joe Conason's way out with dignity and honor leaves everyone a winner exect the zealots who had long plotted the war, and seized their chance post 9/11, with savage gusto. The White House Iraq Group would sooner eat their young than negotiate with "terrorist" insurgents. History is ready for a courageous Democrat to sieze the moment and adopt the "Conason Option" or a similar, common sense plan to bring 'em home. American voters are ready for such a candidate. Their support will slowly turn timid Dems in the House and Senate so that the nation does not have to repeat the futile carnage of the last years, of the never declared, Vietnam War.

Here is the only plan that will work. We announce that we accept whatever approach towards

the oil fields which the Iraqi government wants to

take. If they choose to renationalize the fields

and sell zero oil to America, we will accept that.

We announce that we will evacuate all the NATO quality bases we have been building in western

Iraq. We will let the Iraqis do whatsoever they

choose with those bases. We announce that we

accept the complete cancellation of any or all of

Bremer's Free Market Decrees for the governance

of Iraq. That should remove 3 legitimate causes of

insurgent displeasure over our actions in Iraq.

Then, we announce a drop-dead date-certain by

which we will evacuate all of our military and

government personnel from Iraq. We announce that

we will either walk out, or bomb and shoot our way

out, depending on how the Iraqis choose to treat

our departure. But we will depart. We will also

cancel all our contracts with the Private Mercenary

Contractors and we will invite them to ride out with us, or to stay in country and take their personal chances with the Iraqis if they so choose.

The Iraqis will either resolve their differences

or not, in their own way, if they choose. We have

nothing positive to offer Iraq except our departure

from it. A drop-dead pre-announced day-zero bugout

is the only way to set the Iraqis free to choose.

If the Inner Government agrees, then the Inner

Government will arrange for a Democrat to run and

win on the Bugout Plan. If the Inner Government

still wants the oil and the money, and the New

Bremer Order for Iraq, then the Inner Government

will elevate a Hillary Lieberbayhden figure and

get it elected. (By Inner Government, I mean the

people who put out the contracts on President Kennedy, Dr. King, Senator Kennedy, and on and on

and on. I hope the Inner Government opts for

Plan Bugout, myself).

I was watching office space tonight, and I noticed the scene in which Peter is talking to Bob & Bob features a white board in the background titled "Planning to plan" with a nasty flowchart. Too funny.

But back to reality, there is planning and then there is leadership. Unfortunately, I see no leadership from either side of the aisle. At least Murtha outlines a problem and proposes a solution to that specific problem, which is better than what everybody else has to say about the issue at hand.

everyone is trying to figure a way out of iraq but one guy-the president. that's because he has no plan to get out but rather has plans to stay in with large bases for the foreseeable future. 10-20 years minimum. why doesn't anyone confront the real plan, i.e., to maintain a force in iraq so as to influence the government , it's oil policies and the remaining countries in the region with our forces. if that's not a plan to maintain hostilities between us and arabs i don't know what is. of course this coincides nicely with the president's religous beliefs which require us to support israel no matter the reason or the cost. when we can confront the reality of that plan then we'll begin to have a real debate.