Kaplan enters with a remarkable exercise in Bush hate. Clever enough to realize its not quite the time to challenge Bush and therefore the military, he tries to undermine Bush's efforts at compromise as deceptive.

First he joins the liberal echo chamber talking about the necessity of pulling out troops as if it were written in stone. Well why couldn't he have asked for an increase in recruiting levels in order to support a larger effort in Iraq? The is no absolute rule limiting the size of the armed forces. If the hypothetical President Hillary Clinton became convinced that Iran was on a kamikaze mission to nuke the US when they had the capability, I'd hope she'd ask for and get troop levels that would change the regime in Iran regardless of what was going on in Iraq.

Kaplan accuses Bush of compromising his ideas that the struggle with jihadists in Iraq is central. Very interesting from a liberal who wants us to get out now. If it is central, Bush has to adhere to an effort that has the best chance of success. That includes political viability. Is he more loyal to his view by giving some ground and bettering the chances of keeping a good effort going? Or standing firm and giving more fuel to those who want to exit now? Surely anyone must agree that putting pressure on Iraqi politicians by indicating an intent to withdraw is an argument with merit; the issue is how soon. Critics (assuming they're sincere and not using the timetable issue as a stalking horse for total withdrawal) seem to think they can come together quickly (or don't care) while Bush is more cautious.

Finally Kaplan jumps on an absolutely vacuous hobby horse, accusing Bush of not laying out a detailed prophetic timetable for future events. Ignoring the fact that chaotic situations like Iraq make such prophecy a silly task, so predicting tends to tie his hands in dealing with the politicians. The important thing is that he has underlined and emphasized a key point: the troops are going to start coming home.

Ironically, the critics have clouded this key point by raising the specious idea that higher troop levels are in principle unsupportable.

This is sad. The effort expended to rationalize this pathetic rhetoric is wasted and embarrassing. Please sit down and listen. Don't compound the sad truth that millions like you will follow the Head Lemming into the sea happily singing his praises while the world looks at us in horror. Even Greenspan recognizes a false prophet when he sees one.

What is in fact sad is that so many people, most in my experience on the left, confuse clever rhetoric with good discussion. If you're not going to make a valid point, why join the fray.

It's not yet time to challenge Bush?

Challenging Bush is the same as challenging the military?

You've got to be kidding.

So you are wolfen...famous wolfen. Why not challenge the military? Put the facts on the table. This military way is leading us to ruin , a bankrupt country, morally wrong. What do we have to loose by uncovering the unsustainability of Militarism. We live in a new age of knowledge and truth and communication brought on by the Internet

I didn't know I was famous. Who's been spreading my name around?

But I agree, that diplomacy by gun is dead. Not only is it immoral, but it is impractical and impossible.