USA Today January 22, 2009:

......At the time, sectarian violence was raging. American troops were dying at a rate of about 100 a month. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared the war lost. Obama and other Democrats favored a timetable for withdrawal as a way, they said, to force warring Sunnis and Shiites to make peace.

President Bush rejected that approach and went in the other direction, surging more troops in Iraq and deploying them in neighborhoods. The surge, along with the turning of many Sunni groups against the insurgency, produced a dramatic reduction in casualties and violence.

After refusing at first to state the obvious — that the surge worked — Obama acknowledged that it had succeeded beyond expectations. By the first presidential debate, his promise to "remove" troops had become to "reduce" them.

Now that he's president, Obama has to do what's best for the nation. In the case of Iraq, that means disengaging in a way that preserves hard-won gains and vital U.S. interests. If the cost of a stable Iraq involves narrowing the definition of "combat" troops and leaving thousands as "trainers" or "advisers," it is a price worth paying.

Ironically, Bush's surge made it far more likely that Obama's drawdown will be able to proceed on the new president's 16-month timeline. So, too, will an agreement already made between Iraq and the U.S. for a pullout of troops on a longer schedule, by the end of 2011. Iraq is on an apparent path to greater stability. Provincial elections are scheduled for the end of this month, national elections for later in the year..........

First withdrawal. Then reduce the number of troops. Then withdrawal in 16 months. Then withdrawal in 3 years. Then?????????