Withdrawing Troops From Iraq: Damned If You Do....

Just a thought on what seems to me to be a bit of intellectual inconsistency about pulling troops out of Iraq.

Those favoring withdrawal like to make fun of the administration's arguments for staying. I've heard over and over quips about how the administration's position boils down to "things are going badly, so we have to stay until they get better; but if they're going better, we can't leave because then things might deteriorate and we'd lose all the gains that have happened." That's not to criticize the comment; the administration's reasoning does seem to have been that whether things are going well or going badly, we have to stay. And the point of this analysis seems to be that since the conclusion is "stay no matter what," the argument must be inherently flawed.

But doesn't the same reasoning apply the other way? Couldn't those who criticize calls for withdrawal say that their opponents' logic boils down to "If things are going badly, there's no use staying because we can't solve Iraqis' internal conflicts for them, but if things are going well, then we should be able to bring our troops home"? Isn't it really the same kind of argument: that whether things are going well or not, we should pull out? If the administration's argument is flawed because it calls for staying no matter what, why aren't the arguments of those who advocate withdrawal equally flawed for concluding that we need to pull out no matter what?

I confess I haven't resolved this one.