There's a little fight brewing between a couple of media lights -- Joe Klein of Time is angry that Ed Schultz of MSNBC held up a sign that said "get out now," during a segment the two did about Afghanistan.  Joe found the action, the sentiment and the policy idea to be trivializing.  The two have traded barbs ever since and you can read Joe's latest recap here.

I'm intrigued by this not because of the fight (frankly, I don't care) but because I am a "get out now" believer and yet I don't feel I'm being thoughtless, irresponsible or trivializing.  I acknowledge that getting out now has some costs.  There will be a humanitarian toll in Afghanistan including much violence and social chaos.  We'll have to contain both Afghanistan and Pakistan from afar.  History may judge us for not meeting our moral obligations to the citizens of a country we invaded.  But there would also be benefits.  Our soldiers would not be at risk.  Our military can rest and be available for more important missions.  We could spend less money in the region.  The American people are largely ready to be done with this.

I think that you can honestly come to the "get out now" conclusion without oversimplifying anything.  It has trade offs.  So does Joe's plan where we stay for another year and then start drawing down.  We would still be spending money that is better spent at home, our soldiers could die, a year from now a year might not seem like it was enough time.  He believes that his point of view, former over multiple visits to the region, is better thought out than mine.  I think they're just different.  There's a lot of uncertainty in this and the best plans from my withdrawal to his slow trickle out to a right wing plan to increase troop levels and try to win the thing all have points in their favor and demerits.

What I object to is the dismissal of "get out now" as somehow less thoughtful, honest or responsible than other ideas about what to do.  Say I'm wrong if you must, but don't dismiss the argument.  My major reason for favoring an immediate withdrawal in the face of other costs is mission creep.  Every year we stay seems to mean we have to stay another year.  In Kabul yesterday Joe Biden promises that "If the Afghan people want it, we won't leave in 2014."  That is disturbing.

For one thing, it's not the Afghan people who should be deciding where we garrison our troops.  That should probably be up to the Americans who are paying for it (or will when the bills come due).  Aren't these also the people who largely don't even know why we invaded in the first place? 

Every time we put off the withdrawal, we risk staying forever.  That's what the evidence of recent history shows.  I know that some of you, for quite thoughtful and cogent reasons, disagree with me about the need for an immediate withdrawal.  I can live with that. But let's not pretend that any side of this debate has a monopoloy on rationality and responsibility.  We're in an incredibly tough bind.  Usually, when we're talking about the use of force, we say "all options are on the table."  In this case all options has to include withdrawal, whether or not that's what we ultimately choose.