Note this from this morning's Liberal Oasis:

The CW that Bush would order a real drawdown – one that would put us on a path to full withdrawal – fails to understand the true motive of the war.

If you think that the Bushies are actually interested in exporting democracy to Iraq, then you might think they'd be open to cutting their losses once it became obvious the mission was going to fall short.

Whereas, if you realize that the Bushies could care less about democracy, but simply believe in exerting unilateral influence over resource-rich regions of world, then it becomes clearer that they have no interest in turning back from the mission of imposing a “friendly” government on Iraq.

Especially since that mission is making progress.

A “head fake” withdrawal, in theory, would do nothing to change the political dynamics in Iraq, but if the US media treats it like a real withdrawal, it could temporarily decrease domestic political pressure – preventing opposition from reaching a critical mass.

On ABC’s This Week, Feingold touched upon the larger game that is afoot, in the course of explaining his proposal for a 12/31/06 target date for full ground troop withdrawal:

We should have a public timetable to show the Iraqi people, the American people and the world that we’re not trying to have a permanent occupation of Iraq.

However, while Feingold is correctly rejecting permanent occupation, he is still flinching from calling out Bush and the Republican Party on supporting permanent occupation, and making a clearer distinction between the parties on foreign policy goals.

There is further ammo to make that distinction, now that the Senate Republicans rejected an amendment which said “military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely” in favor of a vaguer one that said “should not stay in Iraq ... any longer than required.”

But neither Feingold nor any other Dem Senator on the Sunday shows yesterday made note of it.