Just watching CNN and seeing that the Brit army chief of staff, General Dannatt, calling for a pull-out of UK troops and declaring the decision to try and bring democracy to Iraq "naive."

The story can be found at CNN.com.

This is a stunning bit from the Brits, but I think it's the equivalent of American generals turning on Rumsfeld: they're tired of fighting this war under the worst conditions possible and to see some changes.

So why come out now?

Why the hell not influence a shift to the Dems in the U.S. on the eve of the election?

Especially when you have James Baker speaking openly of proposing direct dialogue with both Syria and Iran to close those borders and get their help on settling Iraq?

When I was in CENTCOM last year, you could really touch a nerve whenever you mentioned dialogue with Iran. Officers wouldn't say as much, but you could tell that it really bugged them that the local player making it hardest for them to succeed (Iran) was off-limits in terms of any direct interactions. That's what I mean by operating under the worst possible circumstances.

We learned in Vietnam: one thing to do counter-insurgency inside the South, but another thing to seal the country off. If you can't do the latter, the former is really hard.

To me, this is the Brit Army voting with their mouthpiece, and it's telling.

I really liked Peter Beinart's bit on Kudlow a couple nights back, saying that the perceived GOP-v-Dems split on Iraq would dissolve right after the election, with many conservatives joining Dems to get Bush to change policy. The only way that can work--namely, a significant drawdown of U.S. forces (don't kid yourselves, we won't leave fully, as we never leave anywhere fully)--is for us to enlist a lot of local help, to include first and foremost Iran.