Redeployment

The newspapers are all atwitter today over Richard Lugar's call to "get out of Iraq". Unfortunately, Lugar said no such thing:

However, he warned against a total withdrawal from Iraq. A "sustainable military posture" would reduce U.S. forces into a support role to help the Iraqi army, he said. Similarly, Voinovich called for "responsible military disengagement" from Iraq. "It is absolutely critical that we avoid being drawn into a precipitous withdrawal," he said in a strategy paper that accompanied his letter to Bush.

They still don't get it. Since before the first Gulf War, there has been a perfect correlation between the proximity of U.S. forces to Iraq, and the amount and degree of the Arab street's hate (and terrorist recruiting abilities) for the U.S. Like it or not, the fundamentalists arguments about the devil American's rings true on the Arab street, and our military presence is a particularly potent proof of those assertions.

While Republicans may be "inching", and I mean inching, away from Bush's position, don't be fooled into thinking it's much of a change. As I mentioned before, permanent bases in Iraq have always been on the agenda backed by the belief that in some way the U.S. can influence outcomes. Perhaps at some reputation improved future date the U.S. can help shape solutions. But the U.S. cannot influence outcomes in the middle east with military force. Period. Until U.S. politicians get that, the war continues.

Update: Swope explains why Lugar's announcement is a good thing. He make some good points.