Iraq wants a timetable for US withdrawal = victory or defeat?

Glenn Reynolds sides with victory:

IRAQ WANTS A WITHDRAWAL TIMETABLE? They're talking 2011. Tell 'em "sure." There's probably a fair-sized haggling component here, but it doesn't matter: If they want us to leave, we should say "no problem." Saddam's gone, the insurgency's back is broken, and while big U.S. bases in the area might be a stabilizing force in the region, they might not. Leaving because the elected Iraqi government asks us to is winning, not turning tail and ensuring defeat, which is what we would have done had we listened to Obama, the Iraq Study Group, et al. a couple of years ago.

Of course, ideally we'd leave via Tehran and Riyadh . . . .

UPDATE: Obama seizes on Iraqi calls for timetable. Of course. The wind is blowing.

But Obama has vowed for months to unconditionally withdraw U.S. troops after becoming president (i.e., concede defeat), while McCain said he supported bringing the troops home only after victory, even if that position cost him the presidency.

Which guy do I want to vote for? The opportunist who says, in effect, "Oops! We won: wait for me, I'm your leader!", or the man who stands for principle even when it could cost him politically?

UPDATE: WaPo takes Obama to task for "foolish consistency". The basis for his pledge to unilaterally withdraw U.S. troops in 16 months was that America had failed in Iraq, and now (apparently) the basis is that we have succeeded.

Apparently history has now caught up with his great idea.