Who Wrote This Headline?

From the WSJ:
Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
BY JOE LIEBERMAN

Sounds like a stereotype in the making, right? Hawkish Dem stands out from the crowd by defending the effort as-is in Iraq ... right?

Not quite. Unlike that title, here's words that the good Senator actually wrote:

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

That doesn't exactly read like a pean to keeping troops in Iraq at all costs.

Without a doubt, Joe's a hell of a lot more optimistic about the outcome than many back home. I'd agree with that to the extent that liberty tends to be a rather self-fulfilling right and the genie isn't going back in the bottle anytime soon.

But where I break from Joe is that aquiesence on the issue of the administrations foot-dragging approach to troop training in Iraq is no longer a competitive force to get action out of the administration. If the outcome in Iraq hinged entirely on the ability of our guys with guns to use them effectively in combat, this would be a no-brainer. But what's held up the administration for an increasing period of time is that it remains an administration hell-bent on opposing nation-building on the part of the military at the very time it needs to do just that. In other words, the task before us is to push the square peg of the administration's worldview through the round hole of reality.

Joe rightly notes the following:

Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground.

I'd agree with that, going so far as to suggest that the past year or two has been a far cry better in terms of the administration coming face-to-face with reality. But what is a growing concern is that "mistakes" seem to be the norm for this administration. From a Vice President that remains a loyal lobbyist for the right to torture to a President who fails to believe in the worthwhileness of the very task at hand. One thing Murtha nailed in his recent speech ... the threat to withdraw troops serves as a powerful incentive to the administration to hurry up and get things right and leave the Iraqis fully able to defend their own nation against terrorists.

There's a point somewhere between immediate withdrawal and a lifetime of acquiescence to incompetence that seems to be "just about right" in terms of the urgency with which to finish the job in Iraq. The importance of finishing the job right, sooner, is that the opportunity may not be there to do so later. Foot-dragging and a lack of urgency will only go hand-in-hand with a deteriorating lack of trust on the part of the American public that Iraq remains a worthwhile endeavor. Murtha's midpoint between the extremes may yet prove to be a bit closer to the mark needed than Joe's at this point in time. But there's no mistaking that more and more of the argument is taking place in a smaller and smaller range of debate somewhere near the vital center.

UPDATE: Da Moose has his take on it, dubbing Joe and outgoing Virginia Governor (and incoming Presidential candidate) Mark Warner, The Coalition of the Adults. I can live with that.