Rich Lowry has fired back, calling Derbyshire's position on Iraq a "muddle" and "silly" because of the inherent contradictions I mentioned above. To quote Lowry's challenge: 

 "So how are you going to kill all these jihadis that you want so dead when you leave Iraq? With some of your super-duper covert raids? My problem with your cold-blooded realism on Iraq is that it is not the least bit realistic. On Iraq you are a pessimistic fantast. The pessimism is fine. It may even be proven right in the endno one can know at this point. It's the little fantasiesa pullout right after the election, a fighting retreat, all the rest of your muddlethat are silly. 

 "The problem you have is that you don't care what happens in Iraq, but you want all jihadis dead. But what happens in Iraq will impact how many jihadis end up dead. A pro-jihadi government of the sort that has a greater chance of coming about if we leave precipitously will not kill those jihadis you want dead. In fact, it will provide a haven for them. Are you going to re-invade Iraq to go kill them all? Then leave again? Maybe we can put Iraq on the six-month invasion plan. 

 "The obvious play here is to try to create a government that will do some of this killing for us. You don't even want to try. By the way, the language about killing all jihadis I picked up from you. We are not going to kill all jihadis in Iraq. Trying to stay until we do that would be a fantasy. What we can do, perhaps, is help foster a decent government that can stand up to them." 

 He ends by asking Derbyshire a blunt question: does he favor an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? If Derbyshire answers yes, I'll leave the article alone. If Derbyshire answers no, I'll amend the article to reflect his latest views. If Derbyshire muddies the waters again - maybe the most likely scenario - I'll leave the article alone until Derbyshire's position clarifies. Whenever that may be.