By distinguishing himself from the Democratic pack (as matters stand as of this writing) on the issue of signing off on the military funding bill even though it does not contain a redeployment time table, John Edwards, whom I basically respect both as a man and a man with a message, may be marking an entirely different turf for himself (from the "peace candidate" he covets), that is, "panderer to the Left," or, substantively, "muddler of foreign policy." It's not that Edwards is the most blatant panderer on either side but simply the most recent, in a way that commits to a policy (should he be elected) that hasn't been thoroughly vetted by the Democrats.
When, whether and how to leave Iraq have largely been ignored as discussion topics or debating points among the Democrats, with the mantra "the people want" substituting for any significant thought. Yet, the dance between the administration and the Democrats over war funding has nonetheless brought, if not fruit, at least "movement (benchmarks, etc.) with caution," probably the objective, dispassionate wisest course as we feel our way forward.
The Iraq War, even yet, has not had an adequate public debate with the heavyweights on either side (save for McCain) offering clear, reasoned andd compelling ideas on what to do next. It is undeniable that "Bush's Bungle" (which you can define as either entry in the first place or a supreme botching of the aftermath, the occupation) colors the venture yet, poisoning now what should be defined instead as an entirely new situation, with entirely new ramifications of its own. Maybe withdrawal and a coordinated all-points effort at hostile suppression and diplomatic-prevention of terrorist strategies is indeed the best course to follow. But to my mind and for my money (a cheap way to indicate everything valuable), that case simply hasn't been made. What happens if we largely redeploy? Slogans don't substitute for thought.
