I agree to an extent with BT's assessment that the 9-08 target date is political, but disagree that the interval to 1-09 is virtually negligible, not in absolute terms, which it isn't, but in terms of when a fairly complicated process needs to be started, which is sooner rather than later. The lead-in time, both for political forces to forge into resolve and for military forces actually to physically disengage in a least destructive fashion, offered by the present scheme thus appears sensible. Details aside, the grand debate that's going on is between the win-at-any-cost proponents (Bush, McCain, Lieberman & Co) and the avoid-an-endless-quagmire proponents. Thus cast, the Democrats have a strong position, with seemingly broad popular support. They are fighting, however, the specter of a failed state, a roiled region, the geo-psychological effect of accepting defeat and other boogeymen of varyingly real characters. Yet, as with most decisions based on a prediction of future events, the conclusions reached today about the effects that will befall us tomorrow are necessarily speculative, and can only be approximated to an actual later reality by a process of sound risk-assessment, made all the easier, for good or bad, in the post-Vietnam era.
I should add that the Democratic position necessarily incorporates, at least in my understanding, the tacit view that all legitimate aims in the struggle with violent, radical, terroristic Islam can be successfully addressed through more effective means other than a pitched land war in a country experiencing, mainly, exaggerated civil strife.
