|
The American situation in Iraq is kind of like having a tiger by the tail - the situation is bad, it's slowly getting worse and worse as the tiger gets more and more angry, you can't hold on for ever, and the situation will get *spectacularly* worse when you let go.
At present, American troops are all that it holding Iraq together. They won't be able to hold it indefinately, and when they leave it will disintegrate.
Whoever is president at the point the troops leave will pick up a lot of the blame for that disintegration, despite it being inevitable (mostly - there are probably ways the departure could be handled to make it more or less serious, the most obvious one being that leaving sooner will almost certainly be better than later).
Bush is clearly determined that that isn't going to be him. He's going to keep the troops there until he's no longer president, so that he can claim that if he'd stayed on and remained in charge the war would have been fought to a "victory".
The Democrats can't do anything to prevent that. Not "don't have the spine to", not "have sold out and refused to", *can't*. They simply don't have the votes to force him to. So the troops will still be there in 2009.
However, the next president will be able to withdraw without losing political face (and unable to stay without doing so), and will almost certainly do so as fast as possible - starting in 2009, and finishing by 2010 at the latest, I'd imagine, although I'm anything but an expert.
Even if they're a Republican, I think that will so obviously be the only possible course of action that they'll take it.
|