If as you say, the SOFA was just to get us through 2009, how do we pull that trick again? Do you expect that the PM and parliament will basically give us extensions with a limited time horizon in perpetuity? Are you counting on increased support making the fight easier next time? Or do you think we can ultimately ignore it with the tacit permission of the Iraqi government a la predator strikes in Pakistan?

Considering that the SOFA was much more restrictive than what we originally proposed, I would be rather surprised if we can keep extending it. Similarly, a groundswell in Iraqi support would be great news but seems unlikely. So are you thinking we can get around the law or am I missing something?

Since we're in a truth-telling mood about Obama's plan to stall the Withdrawal thru 2009, let's also clarify what our post-multinational military mission is. A Sunni-Shiite stalemate is what we're hoping to salvage, thru continued occupation.

The situation going into the 2007 'surge' was that the JAM/Badr militia side of Maliki's coalition was across the river in force, had central Baghdad by the throat, was on the verge of defeating the Sunni in detail, driving thru to Abu Ghraib and the airport. That's where it was when Odierno locked the city down with barricades and troops, at a cost of 900-1,000 KIA's.

With ethnic control of central Baghdad pretty well established in 2009, the Shiite objective will be to move us back out of the way, secure access to the Golden Mosque in Sunni controlled Samara (to the North), and clear out the murderous Sunni forces along the pilgrimage routes S. to Najaf and Karbala. With 60% of the population, why should they settle for less than 80% control of the resources and population centers? Think about it.

The Sunni objective will be to oppose further erosion in the outer belt, to continue to rebuild smuggling routes and military force in Anbar, to bring their displaced back from Jordan/Syria, and regain some position in parts of Baghdad where their property has been appropriated. Good luck on the last.

The Barzani objective is to ride politics or war-chaos towards eretz Kurdistan. So far the Kurds seem immune from the intramural fighting of the Shia and Sunni, but they've lost the 'organized force' monopoly vs the Arabs.

All three can be counted on to try and provoke the US forces (with the usual bad intel, mine and sniper attacks) into attacking their enemies.

In it's simplest form, it looks like the US primary mission is to continue to shortstop a dictatorship of the Shiite majority, and thereby hope to reduce the risk of regional players increasing their participation in a renewed Sunni-Shiite civil war. In that endeavor, will we have to choose between our regional interests, population protection and internal political stability? Almost certainly.

The US mission will continue to support the Sunni militia and limit Shiite power in Baghdad. It will constrain their moves to open a Samara-Najaf shiite corridor, and put us in conflict with the interests of the governing Maliki-ISCI coalition. That coalition will need powerful incentive to cooperate with any 2009 alteration of the Withdrawal/SOFA agreement, terms that specify we pull our troops back from the cities in the next 4 months.

So what are we prepared to offer them? Military hardware? To both (three?) sides, again? Instead of punching the tar-baby, we're going to caress siamese triplets, fighting in our arms? The result to us would seem to be much the same. We're stuck.

Our ground force was badly overextended, even before the last 2 years of 15 month 'surge' tours, and is unable to begin a reset from that position this year. More deployments to Afghanistan are pending on Petraeus' CENTCOM desk, and Gates is wrestling with budget cuts.

The ' long war' in Iraq amounts to continued strategic defeat for the US, even without being able to predict which side of a stalemate we end up on in 2011 or 2014. Bin Laden/Zawahiri would have preferred to humiliate us directly, but the thought of Americans and Shiites exhausting themselves in conflict has to warm their salafist bones by their fire.

...the more I think you are going to have to clarify what you have written. Do you believe US forces will remain in Iraq beyond 2011?

The President is just buying time to deal with more immediate issues of the economy. Iraq will change under our noses.

By the way don't believe much move about in the hummers. All is in the anti-mine mastodons that we now utilize in lieu of generalship.

Yes, I do share Bill's view that there are much more pressing domestic (economical) issues at hand. Whether or not the troops will vacate can be left till next month, end of the year, next year, or until August 2011 to decide, again. It's really just a one-off, temporary solution to ease some tension and provide some hope, if any.

Clausewitz wrote that "defeat is the mind of the enemy commander." Translation the war is over when the enemy says its over (unless there dead to a man.

Obama can't decide sitting in DC when the "war" is over.

Listening to the briefings at the White House, I failed to find much difference at all between Bush and Obama approach on Iraq.

There was also very little explanation about what it means to get all "combat" troops out in 2010. Obama has committed to conducting "counterterrorism" ops in Iraq--these will be done by "combat" troops. Plus, a good deal of the troops that are advisors--e.g. support troops are "combat" troops. So the real truth is there will be "combat" troops in Iraq until the last day.

So this White House has gone out of its way to make what it does sound different from the last administration...but it is really not...that kind of subterfuge can't make folks on any side of the debate happy.