But I am guessing that "surrender" is off the table.  Thus, the only 2 options in Re: ending the war are a decisive victory, or a stalemate.

And therein lies the problem.  

Sen. Obama's plan to end the war sounds a lot like the stalemate option, minus an admission that a stalemate is indeed the desired goal.  And Sen. McCain's plan to end the war sounds a lot like the victory option, minus a realistic plan to get to a decisive victory.

Let us ignore the missing element in Sen. McCain's plan ~ I do not believe that he can devise a realistic plan for victory that is also acceptable to a war weary public, and concentrate on Sen. Obama's proposal.

My first question is: Why cant we just admit that a stalemate is what we desire ?  It would be a lot easier to achieve this, if we were actually honest about it!

From Sen. Obama's OpEd:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis' taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country

This statement is symptomatic of the problem.  In my opinion, the desire to redeploy the troops is necessitated by a desire to "bring the troops home" (can anyone honestly argue otherwise), and not by a desire to force the Iraqi's to reach a comprehensive political accommodation.  The expectation of political accommodation following US troop withdrawal is being tacked on to justify a withdrawal necessitated by a wish to bring the troops home.  

Is there any reason to justify an expectation of political accommodation if US troops are departing (or threatening to depart) ?  If so, I would like to see that case being made prominently.  Or, is there a stronger expectation of political chaos and anarchy in the absence of US troops ?  Sen. McCain argues that US withdrawal will enable chaos, that will empower AlQuaeda.  That is a reasonable expectation, in my opinion, and if Sen. Obama has a different expectation, he needs to justify it.

Sen. Obama makes a very strong, and twofold, case for pulling out US troops from Iraq ~ that current troops are overstretched, and current troop levels cannot be maintained.  Secondly, he argues, US troops are needed elsewhere (in Afghanistan) where US has a strategic need to "win".  Politically, and realistically, those reasons may well be sufficient.

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama does not even try to justify the pullout in terms of it being the right thing to do.  Because that case would require an answer to the following questions:

(a) Was it wrong for the US troops to have gone into Iraq, in the first place ?  If it was, then why did it have overwhelming support from the American people, and what responsibilities do the American people have, for foisting an unnecessary and unjustified war.

(b) Was it right for the US troops to have gone into Iraq.  If it was, then why is it suddenly right for them to leave ?

I commend Sen. Obama for having opposed the war back in 2002.  I believe (and I have always believed) that the US invasion of Iraq was immoral because it launched an unneccessary war.  I also believe that UN Sanctions on Iraq should have been lifted in 1998, when it should have been apparent to any honest observer that Saddam was in compliance with relevant UN resolutions, and that, as a consequence, the war was also "illegal".

However, that war was launched by a duly elected American President with the overwhelming support of the American people (around 80%, as per the polls) and with bipartisan support in the American Congress.  That means that the American people now have certain obligations that cannot be wished away... The "you break it, and you own it" rule applies!

It may be time to end this war, but it is not clear to me how this war can be brought to an end !!