There are many people who think that the United States can't remove its 140 or so thousand troops from Iraq in less than several years. Some people have talked about a four or five year time horizon. We at the Center for American Progress examined that situation and found out that that is not true. You can responsibly withdraw 140,000 troops from Iraq in a period of 10 or 12 months and take out all of its vital equipment.

Many people who really don't want us to withdraw from Iraq will say, "Well, you really have to slow it down because you don't have the port facilities in Kuwait to be able to get all of the heavy equipment back to the United States. You would also be slowed down because what you would have to do it make sure the equipment is clean and be able to be transported back." And while those are true, the fact of the matter is that once the troops and equipment get to Kuwait, they're out of danger, and they're no longer part of the situation in Iraq.

We have showed that if you collapse the units that are out in provinces back to Baghdad, and drive down route Tampa, which is the road between Baghdad and Kuwait, which is essentially a highway. You can have an invasion in reverse. So any policy maker who wants to can get all of our troops and all of the vital equipment out in no longer than a year from the day that they start.

Until the United States sets a withdrawal date to get out of Iraq, the Iraqis will not undertake the meaningful, political reconciliation to form a unified, stable Iraq. The countries in the region will not help Iraq achieve its objectives as long as the United States is there. The Iranians simply do not trust us, and as long as we are there in large numbers, they'll continue to arm and train the militias who are opposed to us. As long as we're there, the forces of Muqtada al Sadr are not going to cooperate with the government. The Saudis will continue to help the Sunnis because they don't want to see an Iraq dominated by a group that's hostile to them.

But once we set a date to get out, those countries will have two choices: They can help us to ensure Iraq doesn't become a failed state, or they can live with the consequences. And if Iraq becomes a failed state, you'll have millions more refugees pouring into their countries on top of the 2 million who have already left; you will also have it become potentially a haven for a group like Al Qaeda. So once you set a withdraw date, the Iraqis will get their act together, and if you have a diplomatic surge with the countries that are in the region, they will work to ensure that Iraq becomes a stable state because they have no interest in seeing it become a failed state because that would undermine their own security.

Until the Untied States withdraws a significant number of troops from Iraq it will not be able to send troops to Afghanistan without really causing problems for our forces. What it would mean is that you would not be able to give the troops enough time at home between deployments before you sent them to Afghanistan. But if you begin withdrawing troops from Iraq simply by not replacing the units when their tours of one year end, you can take a unit, a brigade that was scheduled to go to Iraq, say next spring, and you send them to Afghanistan because they're ready to go and they've had sufficient time at home. And so you'd accomplish two objectives: not only would you get us out of the mix of this very unstable situation in Iraq, but you'd be able to beef up your forces in Afghanistan and have yourself a chance to stabilize that situation, which is growing worse day by day.