Negotiating our way out of Iraq

Joe Conason is puzzled about The Silence of the Democrats over the unpopular Iraq War (Salon 02/03/06). He observes that negotiations between the US and the guerrillas have taken place. But that the US goals will define the limits of the poosibilities of such talks:

If the Bush administration insists that we must "defeat" the insurgency, or stand up an Iraqi army that can pacify the country, then negotiations are useless. If Bush insists on identifying all of the insurgents with al-Qaida, then there isn't anyone with whom we can negotiate. If the American objective is to create large permanent bases and to win control of Iraqi oil, then our troops cannot leave and the bloody conflict will grind on without any foreseeable conclusion.

So he believes the Democrats should be actively pressing the Bush administration to pursue serious talks as a way of extracting American troops from Iraq. Referring to Bush's SOTU on Tuesday, he writes:

Predictably those clichés won strong applause - who doesn't clap when the president demands support for U.S. troops? - but as usual [Bush's] bid for inspiration concealed more than a bit of deception.

Would the withdrawal of our forces leave Baghdad to al-Qaida? No, because the foreign-led jihadists represent a small fraction of the insurgency. Must we continue the occupation indefinitely to prove that we "stand behind" the American military? No, because the war is damaging our military strength, and to support the troops means finding a way out of the sand trap as swiftly as possible. And is there "only one option" for the American nation? That's wrong too, although the Democratic leadership didn't dare say so in the feeble response delivered by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.