Last week I argued that setting a definite timetable for withdrawal from Iraq could be used as a bargaining chip with the nationalist Iraqi insurgents, in order to get a cease fire and turn them against the Jihadists.

“[R]ight now, the insurgency is being fueled to a great extent by our continuing presence in Iraq. So long as we are there, it�€™s easier to recruit disaffected Iraqis to the cause. So long as we are there, it also serves as a powerful magnet for every Islamic militant with a death wish and a grudge against the United States.

Once we leave, the split in the insurgency between the nationalist faction and the islamic Sunni militant faction will accelerate. The latter being, in my view, much smaller.

Once we are gone, the nationalist faction will put up it�€™s own �€œmission accomplished�€� banner, and side with the Iraqi government to clean out the Islamic militants. After all, they are mostly �€œforeign invaders�€� too.

In fact, we can actually make our withdraw[a]l part of a deal with the nationalists to stop fighting, and join the Iraqi political process.”

Today, a story in the the Sunday Times confirms that this is indeed not only a feasible strategy and option for getting out of Iraq, but it is EXACTLY what the nationalist Iraqi insurgents want.

“The Iraqis had agreed beforehand to focus on their main demand, �€œa guaranteed timetable of American withdrawal from Iraq�€�, the source said. �€œWe told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless.�€�

The demand did not meet with a favourable response from the American team, perhaps because a timetable is the one thing that President George W Bush has declared he will not agree to.

Both Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, insisted last week that setting a timetable would be an invitation to the insurgents to �€œwait us out�€�, as the president put it.

Ibrahim al-Jafaari, the Iraqi prime minister, also rejected a timetable during his first visit to the White House on Friday. Bush reassured him: �€œThis is an enemy that will be defeated . . . You don�€™t have to worry, Mr Prime Minister, about timetables.�€�

The insurgents went on to demand US compensation for the damage caused by the American military occupation. One group put in a bid for Saddam to be restored to power, but not even his colleagues appeared to be taking that seriously.

The original discussion is said to have lasted for an hour and a half and to have broken up with the US team explaining that it would need to consult Washington. But one American official apparently asked whether the insurgents would be interested in disarming in return for a release of all Iraqi prisoners in US military camps.

The Iraqi side immediately reverted to its demand for a timetable and the only agreement of the afternoon was to meet again. “

Let’s hope that the “no timetable” pledge taken by Bush and Rumsfeld is merely a BARGAINING position, and not a bottom line.

If you can isolate the Jihadists, who I belive are a minority of the insurgents, that would be highly beneficial to everyone.

Obviously, compensation for our occupation is a non-starter given how many tens of billions of dollars we’ve already spent on reconstruction in Iraq. And so, obviously, is the restoration of Saddam Hussein to power.

I regard those two posistions to be bargaining hyperbole on the insurgents’ part, however. But the timetable for US withddrawal, I believe, is not.

It’s the ultimate goal of these folks.

So now we have a situation where setting a timetable for withdrawal will very likely result in a cessation of hostilities with a significant portion of the insurgency, and we are not going to take it?

Maybe Bush ought to read his Sun Tsu again? ” If [your opponent’s] forces are united, separate them.”

Then aagin, if he had read Sun Tsu in the first place, we would never have invaded Iraq at all!

So what would it mean if Bush continues to seriously consider putting a timetable for withdrawl on the table? He can’t continue to claim that the insurgents would just “wait us out,” because a ceasfire and possibly disarmament would be part of the timetable deal with them!

It would imply to me his opposition to setting a timetable for withdrawal is NOT a military one. It’s political.

Maybe it’s for domestic politcal conmsumption. A possibility that must always be one the top two motivations for ANYTHING Bush does. But in this case, I’m not so sure. Polls show that the voters want us out of Iraq, sooner rather than later. It can’t be very helpful for the GOP, politically, to have Bush sound like he’s a lunatic, and take such an increasingly unpopular position.

Thus, it may be that Bush has NO INTENTION OF WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ!

A position I took several months before we invaded. Iraq is an enormously important strategic piece of real-estate. It borders Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves.

From an empire building standpoint, we’d be crazy to leave.

But the U.S. is not in the Empire building business. Or at least we aren’t supposed to be.

I just hope the Democrats figure this out, and make “timetable for withdrawal” their official party position on Iraq.

Frankly, the’d be crazy not to, despite the advice they’ve gotten otherwise from people like Gen. Anthony Zinni.

UPDATE: Corrected for spelling.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Donald Rumsfeld sets a timetable for withdrawing froim Iraq — twelve years from now!

Now if we can jsut cut it back 7 years, we’ve got a deal!