they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind

Democrats should have been pushing the idea that this is not a 'war' or something that can be 'won' a long time ago.

It's an indisputable fact that we're going to run out of troops early next year, such that we will be FORCED to start a drawdown regardless of what anyone wants.  That would be a horrible cirumstance...because it would essentially signal to our enemies that we have very little ability to react to any new crisis.

So I'm giving a gold star to the first candidate who says something along these lines:  "I'm for beginning a withdrawal today with a fixed end date before this President recklessly breaks our military and leaves America less safe.  If we wait any longer, we will be forced to drawdown on our enemies terms...not ours."

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's International Policies, from Harvard
International Review

"New Realism: Crafting a US Foreign Policy for a New Century"
Governor Bill Richardson, Redacted from Harvard International Review

US foreign policymakers face novel challenges in the 21st century. Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats; globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies--not from hostile governments
but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels. The piece does a credible job of laying out the problems before us and arguing that the Bush Administration has not taken the appropriate measures to deal with them.

The highlights of Richardson's plans:

First and foremost, the United States must repair its alliances. US leaders also must restore commitment to international law and multilateral
cooperation.

Promoting expansion of the UN Security Council's permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America.

Ethical reform at the United Nations so that this vital institution can help many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Expanding the G8 to include India and China.

The US government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions."

On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by embracing
Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Lead the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies.

Stop considering diplomatic engagement with others as a reward for good behavior.

Various efforts including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The United States needs to start showing, both through its words and through its actions, that this is not, as the Jihadists claim, a clash of
civilizations. Rather, it is a clash between civilization and barbarity.

Closing Guantanamo

The United States also needs to pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Arab world to reform their education systems, which are incubators of anti-US sentiment.

Spend more to develop first responders and to drastically improve public health facilities, which, five years after 9/11, are not ready for a
biological attack.

The United States needs to lead the global fight against poverty, which is the basis of so much violence.

Encourage rich countries to honor UN Millennium goal commitments.

Lead donors on debt relief, shifting aid from loans to grants, and focus on primary health care and affordable vaccines.

Promote trade agreements, which create more jobs in all nations and which seriously address wage disparities, worker rights, and the environment.

Pressure pharmaceutical companies to allow expanded use of generic drugs, and encourage public-private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance access to anti-malarial drugs and bed nets.

Promote a multilateral Marshall Plan for Middle East and North Africa.

Plainer, if the issue is "how can a Democratic Congress get us out of Iraq", the answer is not "by allocating funds to spend on operations against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations in Iraq".

Plainer still: the real issue is not "how can a Democratic Congress get us out of Iraq", as evidenced by the fact that the Democratic Congress is not trying to get us out of Iraq.

The longer we keep sending 5-6% of our national income down the Iraq sinkhole, the more likely it becomes for the Iraq war to destroy us. We need to get these votes, but it is a task I am not particularly optimistic about at this time. Another blank check it probably on the way. Perhaps a better strategy is to figure out how, in 2008, to punish those who allowed it to happen, and end the working conservative majority.

So, continuing to appropriate money for Iraq will "destroy us" but it's not worth fighting to stop it.  Better to just wait so we can say "we told you so" and get people to vote for our candidates.  Who will then, under his logic, be trying to save a country that very well might already have been destroyed.

Someone says, "Hitting him in the knee won't kill him.  Let's aim for his head.  Why are you aiming for his knee?".