The Democrats have a plan for troop withdrawal in Iraq: Take the troops out of Iraq and put them somewhere else.

After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

The concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. ...
[...]
Under Korb's outline, all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas -- Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa -- with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq.

Korb said in an interview that setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

Korb said in an interview that setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

"The Iraqis want us to go," said Korb, who has opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start. "If you're out by the end of 2007, we'll have been there almost five years. That's not cutting and running."

Democrats may call this plan "strategic redeployment." I call it a shell game -- and I don't think it's likely to reassure Iraqis about U.S. intentions. How is shifting U.S. troops from Iraq to right across the border in Kuwait going to convince the Iraqi people that the United States has no imperialist designs on their country? If Americans can pour over the border at will, whenever a "crisis" occurs (and who exactly defines what a "crisis" is?) then Iraq is not sovereign, is not a democracy, and is certainly not free.

This is not a real change of policy. It's still the same old Scrabble board, with the same worn-out tiles -- they're just arranged in a new way to form different words.