better late than early

Pejman Yousefzadeh's post about Bush's exit strategy for Iraq worries me. The gist of his commentary is that we can't afford to leave Iraq too early:

Make no mistake: If American troops withdraw before the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take care of themselves, we will lose Iraq to complete barbarism. And if that happens, the Administration will have won itself no friends--either among those demanding withdrawal from the very beginning or among those demanding that we stick it out until the job is done. Worst of all, American security interests, prestige and credibility will suffer a monumental setback.

The significant decision isn't "do we withdraw from Iraq", but "when and how quickly do we withdraw from Iraq"? Afterall, Iraq has to stand on its own eventually. If the invasion of Iraq was intended to result in fundamental cultural changes throughout the Middle East, we won't achieve those benefits until Iraq becomes the prototype for stable and self-sufficient democracy in the region We can force democracy on Iraq, but only by letting them stand on their own two feet can the world know that this new democracy is stable, self-sufficient and worthy of emulation.

I'd very much like to know why the Administration is talking about large-scale withdrawals over the next two years. We've been making progress both militarily and politically against the terrorists (even if the press won't acknowlege it), so it's entirely possible that the Administration feels that Iraqis are capable of managing a larger role in their own defense. It's also possible that Bush is losing his nerve and is preparing to throw Iraq to the wolves. We risk more by pulling out too soon than by staying in too long, but I've got just enough faith left in this Administration to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.