This is good journalism in that it gives exposure to a source of opinion outside of the US, and thus not colored by US politics. That is not to say that the UK, by virtue of their support with troops, doesn't have something at stake, but Blair is already on the way out, so his successor has to deal with the war now. Perhaps this is an attempt to try to get the new PM to stay the course as well. On the other side what he offers is no option. His basic position, whether or not he states it, is that troops need to stay to see some kind of outcome that the West can find satisfactory. That doesn't look to be in the picture for the foreseeable future, at least not based upon the events and conditions we read or hear about. This open ended commitment is no better for the Coalition forces or the Iraqi people than a proposed withdrawal date. The insurgents can easily out-wait the Coalition forces, they live there, and meanwhile the deaths increase for all parties involved. Furthermore, he doesn’t offer what advantage he feels staying the course will bring, only that a fixed timetable is bad. I won’t speculate on what would happen in Iraq if either option were announced as policy. I believe that at this point the ultimate outcome in Iraq is going to be essentially the same regardless of the option chosen; the only difference is when that will occur. It is a fact, however, that the longer the Coalition forces remain in Iraq, the more deaths of those serving in Iraq will occur. The true limit of how long the Coalition forces can stay will be determined by the Coalition countries’ ability to afford the monetary cost or suffer the increasing loss of life. It appears that the public in the United States is very close to that tipping point, and their decision will then be forced on those in power. The sad part is that it doesn’t appear the Iraqi people, very people the regime change was supposed to benefit, have much say in this decision. However, they will suffer with the results.