Just because we've built all those permanent bases fourteen of them, and the largest embassy in the world (surface-to-air missiles on the roof, Krispy Kreme donut franchise), doesn't mean it's actually sensible--or moral, if you've got any "values" at all--to get people killed staffing them. CFR's Stephen Biddle in WaPo:

Growing opposition to the surge has not yet translated into support for outright withdrawal -- few lawmakers are comfortable with abandoning Iraq or admitting defeat. The result has been a search for some kind of politically Moderate "Plan B" that would split the difference between surge and withdrawal.

The problem is that these politics do not fit the military reality of Iraq. Many would like to reduce the U.S. commitment to something like half of today's troop presence there. But it is much harder to find a mission for the remaining 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers that makes any sense militarily.

Well, what's that got to do with anything? If we tether a few thousand troops over there, Bush cronies will still keep making their billions, Bush will get political cover 'til January 7, 2009, and the mercs will make out like bandits. So what's not to like?

Which is what the Iraq Studly Group was advocating in its intervention--let the lying and looting continue, just on a more reasonable scale--but Bush crawled back into the bottle with the surge, and here we are. It's the Merry-go-round Called Denial:

Perhaps the most popular Centrist option today is drawn from the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations of last December. This would withdraw U.S. combat brigades, shift the American mission to one of training and supporting the Iraqi security forces, and cut total U.S. troop levels in the country by about half.

I've never understood what the Iraqis had to be trained at. They've already mastered torture, and they had a ten-year-war with Iran. And we're not giving them any real weapons? So what's the point? Oh, wait, I forgot. The point is, as it was, to salvage King George's narrow ass, and hang onto power by any means necessary, and conolsiate tehir authoritarian gains. Biddle again:

The politics make sense, but the Compromise leaves us with an untenable military mission. Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. An ineffective training effort would leave tens of thousands of American trainers, advisers and supporting troops exposed to that violence in the meantime. The net result is likely to be continued U.S. casualties with little positive effect on Iraq's ongoing civil war.

So, what are the troops doing there, again? Oh, wait, they told me: Helping Bush out on the politics of it all. Splendid.

Under the best conditions, it is unrealistic to expect a satisfactory Iraqi security force anytime soon, and the more severe the violence, the worse the prospects.

The result is a vicious cycle. The more we shift out of combat missions and into training, the harder we make the trainers' job and the more exposed they become. It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting -- this would be neither safe nor productive.

If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme -- surge or outright withdrawal -- is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange. Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not.

Yep. There is and has been a right answer all along. In fact, we DFH types have had it all along.

Face it, conservatives:

Your guy shat the bed.

Man up, and deal.