If you don’t think there’s been substantial progress in Iraq the last year +, then my statement would be confounding indeed. But that’s where the thought is rooted for me… because I agree with you (and mw) about the costs of this war. Even the most ardent and deluded neocon would no doubt agree that this is not sustainable.

Interestingly, I cam across this same thought elsewhere today from Joe Klein at Time (link). He’s caught up in another argument in that link, but the point I made is in there too.

Dyre — interesting theory! Could very well be. Certainly there are careers that attract various personality (and political) types. Wonder if anybody’s studied that?

Regardless of how his position on Iraq has been presented to the public, I fully expect John McCain to begin the disengagement and withdrawal process if he becomes president.

I just can’t imagine what brings you to this conclusion. McCain has said absolutely nothing to support it. In fact, just the opposite.

As for tenuous progress in Iraq. “We” can’t make it. It’s up to them. And despite the improved security situation, to claim that real progress has been made in the areas we have pointed to as requirements for success is to move the goal posts out of Reliant stadium and all the way to the Minute Maid Field parking lot.

And don’t even get me started on the cost financially to the treasury.

I’ve long said, the Iraq war won’t end until China grows tired of paying for it.

mw — I agree that feasibly, McCain could reduce our presence in Iraq more rapidly than Obama. And I think that both candidates are going to make their “bases” very unhappy. IMHO, that’s a good thing.

Agreed. While there may be great differences between the two from a historical perspective on their approach to Iraq, there is a lot less than meets the ey e in terms of the practical reality in Iraq going forward. Both continue to posture to their respective bases, creating the illusion of a big difference.

The reality is that we have to significantly reduce our military posture in Iraq over the next two years. We cannot afford the status quo as a country, and the military services are overstressed and will break down unless our footprint is reduced and we have some time to rebuild. I’m guessing that our military presence in Iraq is down 65% plus or minus 15% within two years regardless of who is elected president. The sum total of the differences between them is within that 15%. It is even feasible that McCain will be able to reduce our presence in Iraq at a faster pace than Obama.

BTW, I am getting an error when I try to get the trackback uri.