Two weeks ahead of U.S. congressional elections that have put President George W. Bush's Republicans on the defensive over their Iraq strategy, the U.S. ambassador and military commander in Baghdad told voters directly via a rare joint news conference that success was still possible, and on a "realistic timetable".

Insisting sectarian bloodshed had not caused Washington to water down its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq, envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said he expected Iraqi leaders to make "significant progress in the coming 12 months" in meeting "benchmarks".

Timetable. Benchmarks. (Or, "How I Learned to Love Cut and Run.") That sounds like what we (that's the editorial we) have been saying all along. Especially in this post, from October 13, where we said:

...the debate between Dems and Reps is really this: the Dems are saying that as long as we refuse to signal a willingness to initiate the transfer of power, there is no motivation for the Iraqis to "stand up," and so this is an occupation without end; we are essentially acting as enablers to them, our smothering "love" preventing them from taking respnsibility for their own defense. If we send a clear signal that we will be leaving soon, the Dem argument goes, the Iraqis will stand up, because they'd have to. "Only when we stand down, will they stand up."

Looks like the president was paying attention. Good for you, George Dubya! But next time you stop by and read APW, leave a comment! Its the very least you can do, what with us making foreign policy and all.

Labels: The politics