The recent calls for an Exit Strategy in the Iraq war seem to have spurred the President to declaring that he was going to institute a strategy for the removal of American Forces, but gave no specific details or timelines for that exit. All across the board, one hears of 'a timeline'. Just one?

Is it not possible that there are multiple timelines, at the very least, two? On one hand, you have the political timeline, which though we are consistantly reassured that Iraqi elections will bring democracy, we are also assured that troops may begin to be removed after this 'milestone event'. Is it not possible that, while interconnected by a strong dependancy on one another (the political sphere and the military mission) and the need for both mission to be successful, the two are not operating on the same timeline? It is important to foster the development of a strong government to ensure that Iraq does not remain tragically broken forever, however it is naive to believe that this can occur before a state of cease-fire or peace begins. The Iraqi military is not in a position to protect its citizens, and while US invasion and involvement was not (in my mind) appropriate or lawful, to abandon the process half way through is negligent and will not stabilize or bring about positive change in Iraq. I am unsure if anyone knows how that may be accomplished.

The Democrats who oppose Bush, and indeed Senator Kerry himself should be quick to point this out. The strategy of 'first across the finish line' timelines will be unsuccessful. Only when all areas of development and growth reach an equal or acceptable phase will it be appropriate to leave. Otherwise this 'strategy' is abandonment, plain and simple.