Iraq and the six month fallacy

Jackson Diehl's column in today's Post is spot on. There's something unreal about the insistence that the next six months or year will be decisive in Iraq. Some bloggers even have a term for it: They named the six-month interval a "Friedman" after a certain New York Times columnist's predilection for creating—and shifting—arbitrary deadlines on Iraq. 

In Washington's bipartisan mind-set, the next six months are always crucial in Iraq. Persistently, we believe that one big, intense effort will turn the country around -- or make it possible for us to leave...Iraq, however, doesn't operate on Washington's clock -- something Iraqi leaders have repeatedly tried and failed to explain to the ambassadors and generals who demand benchmarks and timetables.

And as Diehl points out, it's a fallacy that has haunted other American leaders in other contexts; the Clinton administration had similarly delusional timetables in the Balkans. The troubling question that the piece leaves unanswered, however, is whether the delusion is a necessary one. Is convincing ourselves that change is right around the corner the only way to stay on the road?