snip>
Now, Democrats should embrace what I like to call "pull and strike"—pull forces from the streets of Baghdad, but
strike hard at Qaeda positions in the Sunni areas and in Afghanistan, mostly from air bases outside Iraq. In other words, saying no to the folly of intervening in a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites isn't enough.
Critics must also say yes—loudly—to calling in airstrikes on foreign fighters, who are increasingly being identified by friendly local sheiks determined to chase them out of their country.
The idea behind pull and strike isn't new, but its predecessor catchphrase—"strategic redeployment"—lacked a certain muscular quality and never caught on. Whatever it's called, the logic is clear. Pinpointing the whereabouts of Qaeda strongholds requires beefed-up intelligence, which has little to do with the large-scale presence of American ground forces. In fact, when we leave, and remove a major source of irritation, intelligence on the true terrorists will likely get better.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263101/site/newsweek/Strikes called in from the distance of "phased" or "strategic redeployment" would have the added disadvantage of more distant intel, as well. Those misses would be like this one, and with a potential for greater frequency. What a mess.