This morning's news says Gates is "on board" with Obama's agenda to speed up withdrawal, and meet his 16 month campaign promise. Is the current transfer of security responsibilities and pull-out of troops occurring at the right pace?

What would be the result of speeding up that process? Yon's and Totten's opinions on that from the ground would be interesting.

Gates is on board with Obama.

But Obama is not on board with the Obama described in media coverage these days (the one who will withdraw troops in 16 months beginning Feb 1). Read this.

All "combat troops" might be withdrawn in 16 months - but as the President-elect has made clear, that rigid timeline isn't his primary concern - safety of the troops and stability in Iraq are. Or, as he explained in his intro of Gates as his SecDef too: we're on the right course and as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. Sound familiar? It should.

I acknowledge that reporters and others among his most enthusiastic supporters will never grasp this, even as it transpires before their very eyes.

Since I trust both men as honest reporters I found myself thinking along similar lines. Petraeus says the situation is fragile and it does not seem unreasonable to hope that both the President elect and Mr. Gates are taking that into consideration.

I wrote that comment at Michael Totten's article. I think they both cover both Iraq and combat, but I don't see the difference. Is it the attitude, or is it a civilian observer vs. a former SF? Or might it just be they are in different parts of the same country? Iraq is a very complex place, I think.

I think both stories are accurate. I think either man in the other's place would have written a very similar story to what the other did.

There is no longer any heavy fighting in Iraq. However, people quoted in Totten's piece express varying degrees of despair about future prospects for peace.

Most of which seems to be based on the hypothesis that when US troops depart a power vacuum will exist, and at some level - local/tribal, provincial/regional or even national (or all of the above) violence will ensue.

Will that happen? Certainly it will in at least some local/tribal-level locations, but whether this happens or not in the larger sense depends on (first) the willingness of actors to initiate that violence, and (second) the willingness of others to oppose same.

If the first happens, the desire would be that the "others" described above are Iraqi Security Forces - best case: police responding, same as in an American city or town, and that the response ends the threat, prevents its expansion, and is supported by a significant majority of the population.

More desirable still: a police force that deters localized violence, and an Army that does so on the larger scale.

The question becomes "will we leave such behind when we depart Iraq"? Barack Obama gave one answer in introducing his "National Security Team".

As I said throughout the campaign, I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office -- responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control.

But the news media is clinging to the Old "Immediately, one to two Brigades a month, all out in 16 months" mantra. Not. Gonna. Happen. (Unless conditions are right for that.) We no longer have that many Brigades there to begin with - we've been drawing down for months now.

Anyhow, that media legend of unconditional, wham-bam-thankyouma'am withdrawal might contribute to any sense of despair expressed. MIGHT is the key word - I don't know.

I do know we live in interesting times.

For more details, read the entries "The Blue Pill" and "The Red Pill" currently on the main page.