We'll see. I note your very realistic assessment of events and the consequences of withdrawal, which is kind of refreshing around here.

If a Republican is elected in 2008, there will be no "cutting and running." Frankly, at this point, I personally believe it's more likely that Bush will throw in the towel before 2008 than someone like Rudy, Romney, McCain, or Thompson will afterwards.

If a Democrat is elected, all bets are off. Someone like Obama or Edwards would retreat immediately, and let the Middle East burn. Not sure what the hell Hillary would do.

The only chance our enemies have in Iraq is to get us to give up, and almost everything they're doing now has this as its aim. This summer is their last big opportunity. The bombs are going off in Iraq, but the targets are in Washington and the newsrooms.

Incidentally, there still seems to be the assumption that Iraq left under Saddam would have resulted in less of a regional problem than the end-game scenario you describe. That assumption is wrong, and that judgment is also "based on history."

There also seems to be an assumption that we would not have hit any of these same kinds of problems if we were only in Afghanistan. In fact, an undivided al Qaida war against the West would have been easier for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, with their western Pakistan havens right on the border. At least Iran and Syria do not have provinces crawling with al Qaeda. Yet.

Try and think about that: There was no easy and painless way out of this once war was declared on us on September 11. The idea that killing bin Laden would have solved everything all by itself is childish.

The war is bigger than either Iraq or Afghanistan, and it's largely a matter of deciding where the battlefield is going to be, and which Western nations are going to take up the challenge or not. Watch Lebanon.