There are four problems with the President's position in Iraq:

First. This administration has always been long on rhetoric and platitudes and short on details with follow through always a problem. The often repeated goal of "Complete victory on the Global War on Terror" is unrealistic. How you declare war on a tactic, especially one that is practiced from the lunchrooms of middle schools to the streets of Baghdad? The Global War on Terror, besides being a terrible sounding acronym (GWOT - sounds like you need to spit), is an unrealistic goal. It'll inevitably be thrown in with the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs - worthwhile goals, well worth fighting, but will never be fully won. Eventually, people will get weary of fighting a war we can't win and critics will point to any existence of terror to prove the we are losing the war, thereby demoralizing those on the front lines of the war. The combination of the unclear nature of the goals of the Global War on Terror combined with four years of saying "we're winning the war" and "we'll accept nothing less than total victory" without being able to define victory or show progress, has led to a total loss of creditability with the administration. With the surge the administration has once again asked for a changing number of troops (21,500 troops plus support staff, minus those redirected to Afghanistan, plus some support troops) with an indefinite timeline and no real concrete goals. This lost of creditability means it's even more important that Bush set goals, milestones, timelines, and metrics. He need to define victory and set smaller goals. Saying, "Give me six months and I'll give you Baghdad!" would go a long way to buying creditability - provided he can deliver. If that's not possible, say "Give me six months and I'll give you Hatha street" or even "Give me six months and I'll secure the green zone", whatever is realistic. Rather, he continues to talk in rhetoric and platitudes.

Second. The second problem is one of emotional investment. At one time or another, we've all invested in a money pit of a car, a house, or that project that's taken twice as long as you thought and you're not even close to finished. In each case, although the objectively correct move would be pull back and revaluate, it becomes a challenge - you have to finish what you started. That's we are in Iraq. We've invested a half a trillion dollars and 3,300 lives - and we continue so the lives and dollars spent aren't in vain. Pouring additional time and resource in the hope of salvaging and turning the war around is an emotional and not an objective decision. The rest of the world see Iraq objectively and wants nothing to do with Iraq - while we desperately throw another $100 billion and another unknown number of lives into the meat grinder to try to pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

Third. The administration raises the specter of what will happen if terrorists take over Iraq? There are certainly risks, but realistically, is it better to have a chaotic Iraq and retain our ability to react militarily to real threats around the work (Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Nigeria, and others) or is it better to wear down the military and become even weaker. Ultimately, some future administration will have to clean up the mess and it might include another invasion, but in the mean time the best move seems to be to regroup and withdraw (even its just to our bases in Iraq).

Fourth. The administration hasn't planned for success. Think of the problem as being three concentric circles: The inner most is security - without calm the other aspects are meaningless; the second ring is a political means for the warring sides to peacefully resolve their difference; and the outermost circle is for Iraq to be able to defend itself from the meddling, competing agendas of the surrounding countries. The administration has concentrated on the innermost circle - creating a peaceful environment. However, they have ignored the next two rings. Just before the referendum on Iraq's constitution in October 2005, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad brokered a deal securing Sunni participation in exchange for the Iraqi government's promising to set up a committee to amend the constitution to incorporate Sunni concerns. This was to have been done four months after the formation of Iraq's elected government. Nothing has happened. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced plans for a program of national reconciliation, which also hasn't happened. In January, 2007 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice set out benchmarks including new election laws, scheduling provincial elections, laws on investment and sharing oil revenue, disbanding militias, reversing de-Baathification and granting amnesty. The closest to action on any of these benchmarks is the revenue sharing law which passed through the cabinet but not yet passed by parliament. Rather than accommodating the Sunni's the Shiites seem to solidifying their hold on power. Rather than moving forward on securing the second ring, we seem to be moving backwards. When it comes to the third ring - securing the neighborhood - the administration has only recently and reluctantly been willing to sit down with Iran and Syria. There are clearly competing interests in among the surrounding neighbors. The administration has already accused the Shiite dominated Iran and Syria from meddling in Iraq, and the Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia has reportedly warned the administration not to back the Shiites. The Iraqi government is almost completely dependent on the US for large guns, air power, logistics, and electronic intelligence. Far from self-sufficient, even if we were to secure the peace and assist them in coming to a peaceful power sharing agreement - it will be years before Iraq can defend itself. There are those that may argue that we can be the ultimate guarantor of that Iraq sovereignty, but it will take boots on the ground to prevent a Syria/Lebanon style involvement in Iraq. Even if all goes well, Iraq will require American presence for the foreseeable future and the administration has yet to get buy-in from the American people.

It's time to pull out - free us from this quagmire. Remember that Bin Laden feels he was able to bring down the USSR through a long drawn out war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden has stated that one of his goals is to bleed America dry financially - let's not play into his hands. And yet, in an almost self destructive manner the Administration is committing us - without a Plan B. To the administration, its either victory or defeat, and no middle ground. Bin Laden is perfectly happy to allow chaos to reign as we strive for the impossible "complete victory" and slowly get worn down.