That's the suggestion by Jules Crittenden:
Surrender enthusiasts may finally be surrendering. Dem candidates say getting out of Iraq may take years:John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
This think piece from the NYT would appear to be part of the growing campaign to get on the right side of this war and support a Democratic congressional surrender in September. They have finally figured out they can’t pull the rug out from under the troops in the field, particularly when they are winning. Now, they need to make it look like it was their idea.
It's interesting to consider.
On the one hand, the Presidential candidates will continue to savage the President on the war rhetorically, even as their course for the future probably resembles his. Congressional Democrats will sound the drum loudly for retreat in September, secure in the knowledge that they are ineffectual.
Hillary, Obama and Edwards can probably maintain their positions unless one or more sees an advantage to shifting. Hillary maintains a lead -- so she need not shift. Obama is close, so it might make sense for him not to do so, either. But Edward is behind and has shown a great proclivity for pandering. If he sees Richardson gaining, and sees his own effort falling short, then he might be the one to fully embrace surrender. If it happens, that could change the dynamic among the top three. We'll see what the leaders do then.