Conundrum

The president has been saying for the past week or so that he won't accept anything but total victory in Iraq, he won't set a timetable or even give us a plan for making the victory happen. Heck, he won't even define what "victory" means to him.

He also has said repeatedly that Iraq is a sovereign nation, and cites the constitution and the elections to prove that it is its own country making its own decision.

Now the Vice-President of Iraq has told people in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. has to come up with a timetable (no time really soon) for withdrawal with milestones, etc. How does this reconcile with the President's adamant assertions that he absolutely will not leave Iraq until he has accomplished his personal goals there? If the government itself tells the U.S. to set a timetable within x so many months to withdraw its troops, yet conditions on the ground don't meet with Mr. Bush's definition of "total victory," what happens?

It appears to me there can be only three possible actions. The first is that Bush complies with the Iraqi government demand for a U.S. withdrawal because Iraq is a sovereign nation. The second is that he complies but beefs up troops and launches an all out offensive so he gets his "victory" first. Or third, he tells them to stuff it and we'll leave when he is ready to leave and not a day before.

Personally I cannot see Bush stepping back and graciously saying "I think you're making a mistake, but you're the boss. Of course we'll leave." If the Iraqi government actually asks the United States to leave by a set date I think you'll see Mr. Bush's true colors emerge bright and clear. It should be interesting to watch.