So I reject the notion that it is a farce to suggest the truth, though the truth may be farce. You may be right about our intent, though I do not agree, but our intent cannot be used to infuse the comments you list, much less the far broader set of arguments I was describing, with a meaning they don’t contain.

Also suggesting this is a farce… bad news means we cannot yet leave, good news means we can stay.  This is another way of playing the neocolonial game.  Our intent appears in concrete form in our bases, many tens of billion dollars, obviously intended for long-term occupation.  It is the elephant in the room.  The counterarguement to this is to ignore the subject, which the US media does very well. 

Usually it has been along the lines of six months to see if it is worth continuing, not withdrawal. I pretty much felt that way in the summer of 2006, and by December I pretty much felt we had a strategy which made it worth staying. Six months later it seemed obvious that we were making progress, though many denied that was true. Then six months later we could see they were not just hopeful signs, but a true change in the situation. Six month time frames are actually pretty good  for such a process. Long enough to see of changes are important, short enough not to monitor the situation.

I think that thought process animates most of those I read.

One the one hand, we can’t always know if a plan of action is unworkable, until it is put into action.  On the other, sometimes it is obvious that a plan isn’t working and ought to be changed quickly.  Something many administrations, but especially this administration, is ill equipped to do.

After the initial invasion, it wasn’t going to be easy job, even if we didn’t have the insurgency to deal with.  You wont find any argument from me that we’ve blown it at times, even as we’ve shined at other times.

I do believe Petraeus has never said, we would achieve victory in 6 months, but that we need to re-evaluate where we are, and adjust accordingly.