Here's another good debate on the Iraq War: Ross Douthat vs. hilzoy.

Andrew Sullivan asks for the right stuff:

As it happens, I think the American people are seeing reality in this. The truth is: leaving or staying are both unpredictable options in the awfulness of the likely consequences. My own judgment is that we are better off quitting sooner rather than later, with the proviso that we protect Kurdistan from Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish aggression. And the deeper question is whether the Arab world should be occupied by the West indefinitely. I say no. The logic of the pro-surgers is yes: the new empire begins in Baghdad. At least I have yet to hear from them an argument as to how their policy isn't endless, how the arguments against withdrawal now won't be valid five months or five years from now. If they want a decades-long occupation, they need to say so. If they don't, they need to tell us how they expect us to leave, and in what time frame. I see no reason for optimism as far as the eye and mind can see. Which means we already have a new colony - in the hell-hole of Mesopotamia.

So then, I would argue, we can't leave if Iraq does this (via Mudville Gazette):

Iraqi Foreign Minster Hoshyar Zibari said on Thursday an expanded conference for Iraq's neighboring countries is to convene in Baghdad in early September, unveiling that Iraq is seeking a long-term security agreement with the U.S. next year once the U.N. mandate given to the Multi-National Forces' presence in the country was over.

The scary part comes here:

"The move needs much efforts but it is a step towards enhancing the sovereignty of Iraq," said the minister noting that "it is still too early to discuss establishing U.S. bases in Iraq according to this agreement but there will be U.S. troops' presence for a long time with smaller size and different missions."

Zibari considered such a move as "an internal issue and has nothing to do with the neighboring countries."

I don't think Iran and Syria, even Saudi Arabia, will consider this an internal Iraqi issue! But, Democrats cannot advocate a total withdrawal if there's a long-term security arrangement with Iraq in place. At best, a redeployment of forces, with a small reduction would seem fitting.

Again, who's making policy here, and who's writing checks the American people will refuse to authorize?