Matt from 1115.org wants to bring the troops home now.
My gut reaction, upon reading the last sentence of the article, where he declares said sentiment, was to wonder when 1115 had devolved into crazy liberal politics. If you want an example of crazy liberal politics, think of your local vegan then think of their politcal positions. This is usually the crazy type of liberalism that I'm talking about, the same people who lie bound in the trunk of a car parked on the mall of the University of Arizona campus and scream "No blood for oil!" at random intervals.
Their basic sentiment is right: I don't want blood for oil any more than they do, "No blood for oil" is a sound sentiment in and of itself. However, as a premise of the Iraq war goes, it's all fucked up. We didn't go to war over oil, we went to war because our president is a cowboy, and, it turns out, dangerously stupid (or shortsighted or intentionally out of touch).
Look, that's not the point. The point is that the people that say/do things like that are usually the ones who demand we leave Iraq right now, damn the consequences, or, as one of the crazy people in my intermediate fiction workshop put it "There's no way that they're worse off now if we leave than if we stay." They being the Iraqi people. This is dangerously stupid and shortsighted in the same way as the president these people rail against.
So you'll see why I was confused when 1115 asked for us to pull out of Iraq. 1115 is typically liberal, v. left of center, sure, but they're the people who endorsed Wes Clark for president back in 2004 (and will again, odds are, in 2008). They're the kind of liberal I am--basically pragmatic. There's a facticity both of the way the world and of the consequences to our actions (both those we've already undertaken and those we've yet to undertake) that we can't change through sheer force of will, as crazy-far-left-liberals don't usually seem to understand.
But then I thought over the article, and he's right. The conclusion of the article isn't "We should leave Iraq right now" (I'm paraphrasing) but rather "If we're not in-it-to-win-it (so to speak) then we need to get out (now-ish)." And that's a sentiment I can get behind.
I'm not saying I agree, but given reasoning behind the argument, it's not a bad point and it's one that needs to be made.
More than that, though, look at it this way: if things are going bad enough that PRAGMATISTS--those fully aware of the big fucking pile of shit we'll leave behind if we leave now--think we should get out now/ASAreasonablyP, the administration is doing a truly shitty job of this. And that, above any partisan gloating or faux (or real, even) moral outrage is just, well, really, really sad.