Text of letter here.

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Any troops in theater will be attacked, whether they are taking the fight to the enemy, or huddled in "training camps." "Force protection" is trying to defend these isolated enclaves of whatever troops would be left after the rout. I would dearly love to see either of these politicians define exactly what the term "counter-terror" means.

"A renewed diplomatic strategy" is verbal gas. "Beyond the region" means pretending you're doing something useful by holding "talks" with Iraq's enemies, while allowing them to go on doing whatever the hell they were doing in the first place, with no consequences whatsoever. Remember, for Democrats, negotiation is an end, not a means.

As far as dealing with helping to form the Iraqi government, we have already been going full-bore on the diplomatic front for three years. It has helped in some cases, in other cases, not. I suspect that blowing Sadr's brains out during his first two uprisings would have been more use than all the diplomacy since.

The term "unconditional surrender" is a precise one. It means removing your forces from the battlefield in the face of an active enemy without any previous conditions being established first. Anything that involves retreat according to the calendar instead of according to the situation, falls into this category.