That appears to be what has been established between the United States and Iraq in figuring out the future status of American forces in Iraq and when those forces may ultimately be able to come home. For more on this issue, you should make sure to check out this interivew between NBC's Andrea Mitchell and General David Petraeus:
I can see myself signing on to a plan with "aspirational goals" concerning the future of American troops in Iraq. But hard and fast timetables with dates will only serve to give remaining insurgent and terrorist forces the information they need to wait out American forces and then run rampant once the United States leaves. There must remain significant amounts of flexibility in any plan to allow for adaptations to changes in conditions, as General Petraeus points out in his interview with Andrea Mitchell. The absence of such flexibility will not only make any agreement not worth the paper that it is written on, it will actively work to undermine both American and Iraqi security interests.
they want action
nobob July 19th, 2008 at 4:31 a.m. (link)
...when those forces may ultimately be able to come home...
some of those forces are keen to get re-deployed in Afghanistan, where the action is. Let the troops choose.
Is Petraeus in charge of all our mid-East forces?
Petraeus
Robert_Chamberlain July 19th, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (link)
Yes, Petraeus was confirmed as head of US CENTCOM http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50467. So, his purview now includes Afghanistan as well. Which probably means that Afghanistan will see some form of a surge soon (more so than already).
please explain
duckhawk July 20th, 2008 at 2:08 a.m. (link)
Progress is looking good. But I've never understood the contention that a firm redeployment schedule would cause insurgents to lie in wait until we've left.
We've always publicly maintained that we'd leave when security conditions improve, e.g. when insurgent attacks stop. If waiting until we're gone serves their goals, why not temporarily stop the attacks causing us to leave so that they can "run rampant"?
The fact that violence continues even after we say we'll leave when violence stops suggests that their ultimate goals don't include destroying the Iraqi state.