Slim and none
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg has a very clear analysis explaining why the political parties aren’t presenting solutions for Iraq. Most of the article deals with the various ideas, from full on reinvasion, to some form of separation, to absolute withdrawal.
But in the current political discussion, Weisberg is right. While many politicians point at each other saying what is wrong, no one talking about trying to solve the problem. There is an elephant in the room. He’s quiet and both sides of the political spectrum are completely ignoring him. (You just keep finding footprints in the butter in the fridge. Blah!)
Not only is discussing a solution almost as stealthy as the administration would like wiretapping programs to be, the reality is probably even worse. Weisberg sums up the situation nicely.
Reviewing these proposed strategies suggests another, less partisan reason why House and Senate candidates seem so disengaged from the question of what to do in Iraq. The situation is hopeless. The best that our leading foreign-policy minds have been able to come up with is a grim choice among forms of failure and defeat. In a country of optimists, no politician wants to deliver that message.
One has to think not how America will leave Iraq but what are the odds of America leaving Iraq more or less unscathed. Probably somewhere between slim and none.