EDITORS NOTE: All the links below have been fixed

There is nothing at all wrong with setting a hard, but flexible, withdrawl timetable. So long as you don't announce it unilaterally, rather than as PART OF A NEGOTIATED CEASFIRE WITH THE NATIONALIST IRAQIS WHO DOMINATE THE INSURGENCY.

If you cut off 80% of the insurgency, and turn the nationalists AGAINST the jihadists, you win the war in Iraq.

Here is my idea on what the Democrats should do on Iraq.

Basically my strategy is, in summary:

Negotiate a 24 month withdrawl timetable with the NATIONALIST Iraqi insurgents in exchnage for them giving up their insurgency, helping us crack down on -- and provide intelligence on -- the Jihadists, and participating in the Gvt.

Here are some additional points. Once we establish a withdrawl timetable, approach Syria and Iran to assist us in cracking down on the flow of Jihadists, guns, explosives and money over their borders. They would be much more amenable to this if they knew we were leaving.

I am sorry, but I am not in any way convinced that setting a timetable is either tactically, or strategically a problem. It may be in many circumstances, but a good military commander looks at each situation as unique and adapts his strategy and tactics to his enemy, and the situation.

The facts and the situtation here point to a divided insurgency between the Jihadists and the nationalist/tribal groups. The latter, we can cut a deal with. their concerns can be met. They've already offered us a deal if we agree to a FIVE year withdrawl timetable. It would be idiotic not to take it.

Our concern should be to do what we have to to win in Iraq, not to protect Bush and the GOP's political backsides.

I have addressed most of these points in three blog posts over at The American Street [Links provided below].

In addition, the conventinal wisdom is that the problems in Iraq are political and thus only a political solution will work. I agree. But one of the BIG "political issues" that the administration and the supporters of the "do it right" strategy keep ignoring is the presence of US forces in Iraq. Drafting a constitution is fine. But not addressing our presence there is ignoring the elephant in the room.

Thus, I am proposing a military strategy that incorporates a necessary political decision to make it effective: Setting a timetable for withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq.

See my posts below for more on this.

To reiterate, I have yet to see a convincing argument that pulling out within, say, 24 months will "weaken the United States" as the President recently claimed. We hear this argument. But those wjo make it rarely, if ever, provide a logical, rational basis for it. I think I have made a pretty damn good case, backed up by evidence, that setting a timetable is the BEST strategy we can employ, provided we do it as part of a deal with the nationalist insurgents in Iraq to stop their attacks on US and Iraqi forces, to prvide us with intelligence and assistance in going after the Jihadists (who they like no more than we do), and to participate in the political process. This may involve wringing some political concessions out of the Shi'ite and Kurdish factions, however. But, our leverage is our continued presence in Iraq. If they say no to our proposed concessions, we can threaten to pull up stakes even earlier and leave them to fight off the Sunni insurgency without our help.

It just boggles my mind that we are not purusing this strategy. The only conclusion I can make is that there are either some strategic and tactical issues I am not aware of, that the people running this war are colossal idiots, or that they are not cutting a deal with the nationalist insurgents because they are afraid it won't sell politically back home. Instead, they are going to ramrod through a lousy constitution, hold qestionable elections, and then declare victory.

Read my blog posts on this in order, from top to bottom.

here, here, and here.

The last link above discussing General Odom's recent article provides some military cover for my proposal, and leads me to believe it is strategically and militarily sound. See also Russ Feingold's recent comments on Meet The Press where he repeated what a senior US military official told him in Iraq when he was there:That setting a timetable for withdrawl with "take the wind" out of the insurgency. And that's if we do it Unilaterally! If we do it as part of a negotiated, Good Friday like agreement, then it's even better,

The following links provide support for the factual assumptions I make to reach my conclusions.

1. 83 members of the Iraqi parliament want us to set a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. They span the political and ethnic spectrum.

2. There is a split in the insurgency between the nationalist faction and the radical islamic faction headed by Zarqawi and aligned with Al Qaeda.

3. We have been attempting to negotiate with the nationalist faction. And one of their conditions for a ceasfire and ending their insurgency is a timetable for US wthdrawl from Iraq. A condition we refuse to contemplate.

4. As late as March of this year, General Abazaid said that "most insurgents appear to be Iraqis." Although he also claimed taht the number of "foreign fighters" was increasing.

This is bolstered by the finding that, as of last year, fewer than 2% of the insurgents captured and detained by the US and Iraqi forces were non-Iraqis.

5. Also last year, Iraqi and US officials said that the insurgency was primarily driven by nationalism.

6. Here is the link to Senator Feingold's comments on Meet the Press.