The only thing the article neglects to mention is the reason Ms. Clinton's request rankled the Defense Department. Yes, maybe it was because she's a woman or because Edelman has been infected with Dick Cheney's arrogance, probably all true. But when you talk to these guys about a plan for withdrawal, it's not a matter that, "Okay, some day we're going to have to get out of there, so what are you thinking?" It comes down to a very different view of the context of that withdrawal. If Bush/Cheney's wet dreams come true, our withdrawal will be something like guests leaving a successful dinner party, all cheery farewells and thank-yous. If the outcome the rest of us fear comes to pass, it will be chaotic, bloody, disorganized and tragic. So, when Clinton asks for a plan, she's really asking, "Have you made provisions for a full-on retreat under fire?" How can they answer this question? If they answer that no particular provisions are necessary because Iraq will be pacified and living under an orderly democracy, they invite the ridicule of the world. If they reveal that they have plans for a panicky airlift, they admit the possibility that things might not go as they hope. If they say they have no plan at all, we're back to the ridicule thing. So, you see, it's a lot more than the gender of the questioner, it's the question itself that is a dreadful tar baby for Gates and his DoD.

That makes a lot of sense. But if they don't have plans for a less than celebratory withdrawal, they had better be making them, because they don't appear to be making any provision for recovering the military to a point where it can continue the current course. They have not diverted funding from ludicrous expensive weapons systems to fund refurbishing and replacing equipment, they have not proposed any way to get enough troops to do what they want to do, they are just treading water as our capacity to swim gets weaker and weaker.

They are trying to have it both ways because the solutions to these problems are too unpalatable (Cancel missile defense, F-22, maybe Joint Strike Fighter, and some others, and initiate a draft).

Standard practice in military planning is you always make a worst case scenario and trey to solve that. So I would be surprised if they did not have a plan for retreating under fire by now. I mean it would only take another 9 senators to switch votes.

Most of the programs you are talking about diverting funds from were already paid for before we even entered Iraq. Screw the draft....if you are so ready to volunteer others to serve, try it on yourself. Been active duty myself now for 18 years, keep your conscripts.

This is pure political gamesmanship on the part of Hillary and is obvious as such. Anything to keep her name in the press. And it is so kind of Slate and other MSM outlets to keep it out there.

It will never be an easy way out. Until Iraq has a legitimate government, there will never be peace. The puppet government can only last so long.

The answer should be "Yes, we have several plans for withdrawal". Those that are properly classified can be told to her in secret, those that are not can be told openly. While I am not a Hillary supporter, she is a U.S. Senator doing what the people elected her to and her duty under the Constitution. i hope we have several plans for withdrawal. If not there arre alot of people at the Pentagon doing nothing.

Anyone who invokes "MSM" dismissively as you are, is just silly and not very credible.