let me expand on a comment i posted on dk's blog the other day.

the ISG report's description of the mess (o'potamia) is something i can agree on, but the recommendations are based on assumptions that may not be true. (i'm not agreeing with the right-wing noise machine. rush limbo's a blowhard smearjock, and the ny post should be renamed ny lampoon.)

one such assumption is that a too early US withdrawal will cause worse violence. nobody knows that to be the case. it might get worse, it might not. it might get better or stay the same. nobody knows. what is obvious is the current violence wouldn't've happened if we hadn't invaded. if we stay longer, we again don't know if it'll worsen, level off, or improve. all we have is uncertainty about the effects of our actions.

that brings me to the (almost certainly false) next assumption: that we are capable of resolving the crisis. we keep thinking we know what we're talking about and what to do, but we don't, so how can we choose the right course of action? we can't. we have a lot of foes determined to make us fail, every time we kill or wound an innocent civilian we make more foes, and anything we do is at least as likely to make things worse as it is to make anything better.

another assumption is that we have a right to decide what to do. but our criminality in iraq may even exceed saddam's. we committed aggression, failed to secure the place, mistreated prisoners, and, in general, caused the destruction of a country. we have no legitimate right to decide iraq's fate or to keep troops there.

that's why i say turn the problem over to the UN, promise up front to abide by the security council's recommendations, and don't try to influence their decision.