Quick note

Jonathan Steele, writing in the Guardian, explains why he thinks John Kerry would keep US troops in Iraq longer than George Bush would.

Oversimplifying, his argument is that Bush might adopt a "save face" strategy, using the elections scheduled for early 2005 as an excuse to leave, saying "We've done our part, anything after this is not our fault." Kerry, on the other hand, "flush with victory," might not be so ready to accept a failure to, in his words, "stabilize the region."

I'm not convinced that Kerry would keep troops there longer than (as opposed to as long as) Bush, and Kerry's rhetoric may be just that: campaign tough-talk to head off charges of being "weak on terrorism" or "soft on defense" by sounding even more aggressive than Shrub.

Still, the piece is worth reading and thinking about. Like I've said all along, no matter who wins in November, the work doesn't end. It begins in earnest.