Wrong, right out of the gate

Boy, I'd be a lot more optimistic about Iraq if I hadn't read the GOP talking points provided by Matt Yglesias:

Success is the only option in Iraq.

Swing and a miss. Defeat isn't just possible, at this point it's the likeliest outcome.

Iraq has a plan in place to enforce the rule of law equally, achieve security and bring stability to the country.

Yes, it's called the Mahdi Army. What?

The deployment of additional troops is to support Iraq’s new plan for stability.

So American soldiers will be taking orders from an Iraqi? Seems we should be talking about that, if true. If US troops won't be under Iraqi command, how are they part of the plan?

But here's the big one:

Our commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. To the extent the U.S. has offered support to Iraq, we are doing so because they have made a compelling case that they are stepping-up their commitment to equal application of the rule of law and achieving lasting security.

So what happens when the troops get there and nothing's gotten better? Do they go home? Saying it isn't "open-ended" doesn't just mean you set theoretical goals, it means that failure to reach those goals has consequences. What happens when Maliki doesn't make the cut? I don't believe that Bush is ready to pack up and go home yet.