Will we pull out of Iraq completely?-- AP seems to think so

I know and have worked with both Lara Jakes and Rebecca Santana, and have a healthy respect for their work covering Iraq for AP. In my dealings with them, they have always been straight shooters, and this article appears to be another example of their fact-based reporting.

I've always said I could not see how either side, Obama or Maliki, could politically weather a plan that kept a significant number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq past the agreed-to departure date of Dec. 31, 2011. This report seems to support my premise.

From what I've read in the blogosphere and in news aggregator sites, some want to paint this as a "cut and run" measure, or a failure vis-a-vis Vietnam. I think we need to look at this a bit more pragmatically. After all, we have to leave sometime.

I've spent my share of time and effort investing in this country and the relationship I hope to share with the Iraqi people and government. I can say with some authority that, while not perfect, things there have vastly improved over the past few years. I would say that conditions in Iraq--the government, institutions, business, education, agriculture--are "Iraqi good." Not neccessarily up to our standards, but certainly good enough for them to move forward on their own.

What some commentors are missing in today's news, however, is this vital piece of information from the article:

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said discussions with Iraq about the security relationship between the two countries next year were ongoing.

Pentagon press secretary George Little said the U.S. remains "committed to keeping our agreement with the Iraqi government to remove all of our troops by the end of this year."

"At the same time we're building a comprehensive partnership with Iraq under the Strategic Framework Agreement including a robust security relationship, and discussions with the Iraqis about the nature of that relationship are ongoing," Little said.

The Strategic Framework Agreement allows for other forms of military cooperation besides U.S. troops on the ground. Signed at the same time as the security accord mandating the departure deadlines, it provides outlines for the U.S.-Iraqi relationship in such areas as economic, cultural and security cooperation.

The most important thing we need to preserve with the Iraqi people, is the ability to continue fostering a close, strategic relationship. I, for one, want a friendship with the Iraqi people and government. They are hard to understand and operate with at times, but in all I like the people and love their history and culture. As long as the strategic relationship continues to mature, and the door for future partnerships stays open, this is a win that was worth the exhorbitant cost our nation has endured.

I do diverge from one point in the article:

Going down to zero by the end of this year would allow both al-Maliki and President Barack Obama to claim victory. Obama will have fulfilled a key campaign promise to end the war and al-Maliki will have ended the American presence in Iraq and restored Iraqi sovereignty.

I thought Obama's campaign promise was to have US troops out of Iraq within a year of his election?

Instead, his administration has been lobbying all along for the continued presence. Only because of events outside his control will he be able to uphold the thin veil of his promise to leave Iraq.

Let's not give him too much credit for this.