And the consensus is permanent occupation, This is echoed in the current foreign affairs, where Haass and Indyk suggest that in mid 2010 time frame, US forces will be half presurge levels.

That would be the 50,000 soldiers that the bases have been built to house.

But the situation remains fragile, and the need to pursue a host of second-order tasks should preclude more than modest reductions in U.S. combat and support forces in Iraq through 2009. By mid-2010, however, the Obama administration should be able to reduce U.S. forces significantly, perhaps to half their pre-surge levels. This would be consistent with the accord governing the U.S. troop presence that is currently being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials. In the meantime, the highest political priorities will be ensuring communal reconciliation and an equitable sharing of oil revenues.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88104-p10/richard-n-haass-martin-indyk/beyond-iraq.html

This is the Washington Consensus, the Serious People's view, and AFAIK Obama shares it. His reference to removing "combat troops" and his refusal to say "no residual force" means, to me anyway, that the occupation will be indefinite in duration, and large in scope.

If not, Iran will dominate the region. That is not considered acceptable by the Serious People.

Re read the first paragraph:

After our visit to Iraq this month, it is clear that what was once unthinkable there is now taking place: A stable, safe and free Iraq is emerging. Violence has fallen to the lowest level since the first months of the war.

They are preparing to do a Senator George Aiken- declare victory and get out.

Prepare to hear 5 years from now, how Dubya won the war, despite the libruls trying to stab the US in the back

2009 a pivotal year? Finally! All these wasted years that no one thought were pivotal are over!

Iran gains hegemony in the Middle East:

1) Explain dire consequences.
2) Show your work.

The Iraqi Gordian Knot will have many issues to resolve as each string is unwrapped. The reality of the "presence of troops in Iraq" is one that we will be dealing with for quite some time. We are still in Macedonia after 15 years; Bosnia for 13 years. Common sense would say that we will have military in Iraq in one form or another for a long time. The question has always been (and in my mind never answered) - To what National Security end?

Along with the work that's been done suggesting that a heavily conservative ideology is correlated with a highly authoritarian personality, I wonder if anyone's thought to check for a correlation with magical thinking?
Cause more than anything else (except perhaps incompetence, arrogance, and a probability of being wrong about everything), it seems to me that this belief that thinking something will somehow make it so ("I decided we'd win the war") perfectly both represents and defines the pathology of Bush and everyone affiliated with him.
I blame "The Secret" of course. I knew we were headed for bad times when I saw that book heavily promoted at my local Kinko's (now "FedEx Office," or whatever the latest hundred-million-dollar name-change has made it).

These are some of the wages of the sin of allowing Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. The Lieberman, Graham, McCain troika are actually the most hawkish gang in the Senate, and have worked together every step of the way in both bringing us the war, and then prolonging it. Yet the fact that Lieberman is still a "Democrat" in some odd sense of the term, and a committee chairman no less in charge of Homeland Security, allows this group to portray themselves as representative of a bipartisan consensus.

Remember, consensus is only important when Democrats have the upper hand. When Republicans are in power - their 50% + 1 approach is called "being true to their principles."

See, only Republicans are allowed to have principles - their opponents "cater to the needs of special interest groups for political gain."

"... a little quiet time ..."

is that the same as STFU ??

if so, then by all means, a little quiet time is more than called for.

Shorter Three Stooges:
More Friedman Units!!

Iran gains hegemony in the Middle East:

1) Explain dire consequences.
2) Show your work.

This indeed the problem. They cannot provide a coherent justification for the occupation of Iraq, and for the bellicosity toward Iran. With the assistance of the Villagers, they don't even bother to try.

Well back in the day, we had everyone agreeing with Bush! Putin? Check. Maliki? Check. Afghan & Pakistan dictators? Check. Wall Street? Check. Oil Companies? Check. Phone Companies? Check. Jesus? Check.

There is only that nagging problem of the American People who seem so disagreeable.

"We caution, however, that 2009 will be a pivotal year for Iraq, with provincial and then national elections whose secure and legitimate conduct depends on our continued engagement."

Yes. Sure. When not?

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=+%22pivotal+year+for+iraq%22&btnG=Zoeken&meta=

Don't worry, Steve. The way Obama is going, he may just get to that "consensus point."

Doninque, interesting that Ben Bova weighed in on the "pivotal year" comments. Did not know he was such a war hawk and military establishment worker bee insider.

"Iraq can serve as an anchor of stability in the region, a counter to Iranian hegemony and a model of democracy for the Middle East."

How does a pro-Iranian government in Iraq serve as a counter to Iranian hegemony? And given that Turkey is already a democracy (most of the time, at least), wouldn't it already be a model of democracy for the Middle East? And Iraq as a model of stability? It's hard to imagine that happening with a Kurdish population seeking independence. If it's stability you want, Saudi Arabia is about as stable is it gets. They've had the same government since they became a country. That's probably the dumbest sentence I've read in a month.

If only people would put aside their partisan sniping and slack-jawed ignorance and finally agreed that I am Master of the Universe with full rights and privileges to everybody's stuff, we'd have consensus. So stop with the stupidity and let's all love one another. Not for me, but for us.

The only consensus these three can build is this: Don't call us, we'll call you.

...maintaining a residual force to train and mentor our Iraqi allies.
Good idea. As soon as we leave and they don't have to suck up to the big bully, they become our Iraqi enemies--a shining city on the hill to serve as a model for other Arabs to overthrow moderate non-democratic governments and replace them with anti-US/Israel Islamist democracies.

For anyone interested, I wrote more about my own consensus building here:
A Chance For Consensus In My Empire

There is a singular reason for the improvement in Iraq and it has nothing to do with the surge, except insofar as the surge was a reaction to the 2006 mid-term defeat of the GOP and that is the true cause of the improvement.

The Iraqis are not idiots, they knew that the 2006 mid-term defeat meant that the US occupation was going to come to an end in the near future. Once that became an established expectation the various factions began planning for after the US withdrawal.

There will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. There will be no permanent US garrison in the region to defend Israel. There will be no invasion of Iran. Those facts being established there is no reason for any faction to continue the Iraq fiasco. That is the bipartisan consensus.

I've said it before, but: everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people.

The problem is when someone treats them as wise - the 'someone' in this case being the WaPo op-ed page editor, who gave McCain, Loserman, and Huck Graham some of that prime space.

One hopes that after McCain's, Lieberman's and Graham's next elections, they will be given all the quiet time they need. If I'm still employed, I'll be happy to kick in a few bucks to the cause.