My guess is that when the so-called American occupation, which the terrorists like to call it, ends, that the interest of the international terrorist community in Iraq is not so focused there anymore. It would allow us to pursue them and be on the offensive.
Let me see if I have this right. We are currently engaged with the Caliphascists in Iraq, but instead we should pull out so we can enage the Caliphascists somewhere else? Does Feingold think it would turn out any different in that other place to which we pursue them? Why would we want to be pursuing instead of fighting, if our aim is to defeat them? His argument isn’t even coherent on its own terms. And it leaves one wondering what place Feingold wants to visit that kind of action on. I doubt moving it to America would go over very well with the voters.
Feingold might want to review the doctrine of “strategic offense, tactical defense”. This means that you grab something that’s near the enemy and of high value, then let him come at you. This forces a fight where you have the advantage, leading to disproportionate losses on the part of the enemy. Given the losses for both side in Iraq and Afghanistan, this seems to have been a successful effort.
P.S. Best of the Web also points out that Feingold wants to bug out of Iraq so we can go on the offense elsewhere, but wants to stay and win in Afghanistan. Does he never talk to anyone who does anything other than nod and say “yes, that Bush is EEEEEEEEEEVIL!”?