TRK -

"Your point appears to be that the U.S. public is accepting of an ongoing military occupation."

No, this was not my point. I tried to say that this was the Obama position - I think I agree with you that the american public - and Obama suppoters in particualr - are bing duped.

If this were discussed accurately, I think americans would oppose Obama position and support a full withdrawal.

Obama is intentionally confusing a withdrawal with a permanent occupation.

Obama has no intention of withdrawing "the troops" from Vietraq at any time. He has only said he would withdraw combat troops. Our occupation and control of Mesopotamia is to continue indefinitely under President Obama as it will under President McCain.

What Obama has said, and been very clear about, is that he will consult with the military leadership on his order to get combat troops out of Iraq, to be redepolyed in many cases to Afghanistan, while the American-led combat operations in Iraq wind down.

He has no intention of "leaving" Iraq at all. Ever. Our presence in Mesopotamia is intended to be permanent. On the other hand, the military itself claims they cannot sustain combat operations there and also handle combat against the Taliban in Afghanistan. So. What do you do if you intend to "win"?

Same thing McCain will have to do to "win." You cut back on combat troops in Iraq (which seems wise in any case), and you re-depoly to Afghanistan. Where you also intend to have a permanent presence.

Liasson provides a gloss on it all that makes her look like an airhead, but that's her role at FOX, and she plays it well. I think she understands the realities "going forward," and I think she knows that no matter who takes possession of the White House next January, the "facts on the ground" are that American combat troops will have to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, and, pretty much, that's what's gonna happen.

For whatever reason, she dare not say that on FOX, however, and she may never say it on NPR, either. This is one of those matters that has to be subsumed in layers of euphemism and distractions in order to be addressed at all within the Palace.

You simply cannot speak the truth there, only riffs on the narrative. Anything else is... rude.

Someone asked where the narrative comes from, how does the Palace Court decide on its policies and practices? How is it that the entire (or nearly the entire) Palace elite shares exactly the same narrative all the time, even though at times it changes abruptly. How do they do it?

It's a good question. And I think there is an answer.

I've about given up hope for getting through to you, so here's my last attempt.

You wrote:

"My point is that Glenn made her out to be asserting that the American people do not want troops to be withdrawn within 16 months. "

Glenn never made that point and I'm just not sure where you're getting that from.

In response to the rest of your letter, it seems you are confusing internal consistency within what Liasson was saying with consistency with what the American people want. The fact is that polls can show many things. Another fact is that there is a very good argument to be made from those polls that most Americans just want us out of Iraq regardless of "facts on the ground".

Another argument can be made, albeit with less polling evidence, that most Americans don't want us to leave Iraq a complete mess.

In either case:

"Her claim was that only the 'left wing base' wants the next commander in chief to stick to the 16 month campaign promise regardless of any new assessment of the facts on the ground in Iraq. "

That claim you say she made, which she did sort of make, is not based on THE FACTS AS EVIDENCED BY THE POLLS. She has no poll to base that on, as no poll we are aware of has asked that question. Its a dud of a question to be sure, because inserting the notion of campaign promises into the mix of what we should and shouldn't do in Iraq only serves to add more complication to an already difficult set of questions.

Again, I point out that she has reduced more than half of the country to "the left wing base" because more than half of the country, in a number of polls, has said that they want out of Iraq regardless of the facts on the ground. She could have said things like "polls are pretty heavily leaning towards getting out at any cost but they are a bit inconsistent", or "the American people are mostly in favor of just getting out, but a significant minority want to consider facts on the ground". Instead, she swept it all under the rug and out comes the magic left wing base to rescue her from the American people.

I am done.

I'm not pushing anything. It's simply a matter of public record that Obama has said he has no intention of pulling the plug on Iraq, Day 1. His position, however nuanced is not all that different from anyone else's. And the fact, yes the fact is, that neither McCain nor Obama will be able to act independently. Their hands would be forced one way or the other. Either the Iranians go nuclear around 2011-12 which has a very high probability, and we leave the region to the 'third' Empire of the middle east (First the Brits, then US then Iran) or, equally likely, things become so untenable here and abroad that we declare victory and go home. But be clear - we WILL be there at least another 4 years possibly more. Given that and given that it's public knowledge both candidates have acknowledged this, it's clear that the American populace at this point simply shrugs and puts "Iraq" up on the shelf with other non critical items to worry about.

Logistically the only other alternative is for the US to abandon most of its basing commitments around the world. 60,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan - toss them all the problem, double down and then pull out. Not that there's anything wrong with withdrawing 100,000 troops from around the world who's job it is to sit around and do nothing.