Those who argue that we stay will always have a structural advantage in the argument in that they can always change their story to suit the circumstances.  If violence doesn’t erupt, they can say “why doesn’t Obama/crazy lefties recognize that what we did worked; what’s he trying to hide?”; if violence does erupt, they can say, “See, why didn’t you listen to us about Iraq; Obama and the lefties are indifferent to the suffering of Iraqis?”

That’s why I think there needs to be a litmus test for the seriousness of people who advocate that we stay.  If you think we should stay, tell us why — in detail, and explain exactly what you would have us do.  What is the specific content of your wanting us to stay.  Note how very vaguely Krauthammer’s editorial justifies the implicit argument that we should stay; he has left plenty of wiggle room for himself to say whatever he wants in six months time, with no concrete proposals to hold him accountable for.

At some point, a choice has to be made.  Far more important than the choice itself — to say or to go — is that we vigorously support our choice and own it and its consequences.  If we decide to go, leave in the most responsible way possible, and violence still erupts, we have to be ready to take responsibility for making that choice, and hope that Americans who may disagree with us or are on the fence listen to the logic of our argument.

But there’s a political question: If Obama withdraws, and then a humanitarian crisis erupts, and then Repubicans argue all over the media that Obama’s withdrawal was irresponsible, and if Republicans point to the humanitarian crisis as proof that Obama was wrong to pull out, how should Democrats respond?

One way for Democrats to respond would be to make the argument that you have made — that our departure was justified, no matter what the consequences, because that’s what the Iraqi people wanted.

But can Democrats win with that argument? Is that how you would advise Democrats to handle the debate over Obama’s withdrawal and the ensuing catastrophe?

If one assumes that we have the right to stay in or leave from Iraq as we please, when we please, whatever the stated preferences of the local population, the relevant question is whether there is a “military solution” to the “problem” of Iraq, as Obama correctly points out.

If there is not a “military solution,” which is what Obama argued in late 2007, when many commentators plausibly described the situation in Iraq as a civil war, then whether we leave now or later is irrelevant.  The messy, bloody undertaking is coming, no matter what — or is not going to happen if it’s not going to happen.

If we assume that we are bound to follow the preferences of the local population, regardless of what we think the consequences will be, then we simply don’t have much to say about the question of whether or not to go.  The Iraqi people are the “deciders.”

Those who think we can stay if we want/for however long we deem necessary and think a military solution is possible — the position of John McCain, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas E. Ricks, among other commentators — have an obligation to outline the nature of that solution, and to give the American and Iraqi people clear and coherent and acheivable criteria for judging the success of that solution.  How will we know when we’ve done enough, passed that last hurtle?

I believe we should withdraw, but we’re going to have to start thinking about how we justify the decision to withdraw if withdrawal leads to disaster.

If we begin to draw down troops and then violence starts heating up, Obama may face pressure to send troops back in. If Obama succumbs to that pressure, nothing will have been accomplished. For Obama to be successful, there must be equal pressure on him to withdraw, even if it means “abandoning” Iraqis to the violence. That pressure must take the form of a coherent argument. Supporters of withdrawal can’t delude themselves that withdrawal will be a “cake-walk”; they must prepare for the possibility that it will be a messy, bloody undertaking.

If the surge didn’t work, then we’re basically in the same position we were in in late 2007.  We have to decide what to do.

In September 2007, Obama made plain what he would choose:

“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was….

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now….

“We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later…

“But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month…

“If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year….

“The president would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis… I reject this choice.”