HILLARY CLINTON: We’re not talking about an exit strategy or a drop dead deadline. What we’re talking about is an assessment that in January 2011, we can begin a transition. A transition to hand off — responsibility to the Afghan forces.

ROBERT GATES: We’re not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We’re talking about something that will take place over a period of time. (Emphasis mine)

Get that? The withdrawal won’t be “abrupt,” and 2011 is not a “deadline.” Oh noes! it must be time for progressives to wail and gnash their teeth over Village wisdom, since this contradicts what Robert Gibbs said about the July 2011 date being “locked in.”

Except that it doesn’t.

The president said he wanted the surge to start bringing down forces in Afghanistan after 18 months. He only gave the month, and not the precise date, during which he aims to begin a drawdown. His intentions are “locked in,” but the details are necessarily going to be fuzzy. That is the nature of military operations; you don’t move 100,000 troops and their gear all at once. The logistical realities alone are staggering, never mind the operational realities.

In fact, we may become familiar with a new concept: mission drag. As opposed to ‘mission creep,’ which is the tendency of military adventures to get further entangled in rising intensity, any mission left unaccomplished after July 2011 will be a drag on his plans — and an object of annoyance.

If you’re still unconvinced of Obama’s intentions, there’s this:

He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner. (Emphasis mine)

Sooner either way. The man wants out, and the worrywarts of the progressive movement are examining every word out of everyone’s mouth for signs that he doesn’t.

As for what Hillary said about there being no “exit strategy:” she also said the month would be January. I think she’s just losing it.

(Inaudible) one of the most thoughtful, provocative, (inaudible) experiences that I ever had. (Inaudible) and I will always remember Bill’s (inaudible) and energy (inaudible). I also want to just say I think I (inaudible) with a lot of my friends (inaudible) and especially (inaudible). (Applause.)

Alex Koppelman proposes we all play Hillary Clinton Mad Libs.

Here goes:

(Going Rogue is) one of the most thoughtful, provocative, (intelligible) experiences that I ever had. (Rush Limbaugh) and I will always remember Bill’s (missing penis) and energy (in Florida). I also want to just say I think I (speak in tongues) with a lot of my friends (on health care) and especially (climategate). (Applause.)

1. To bargain, as over the price of something; dicker: “He preferred to be overcharged than to haggle” W. Somerset Maugham.

2. To argue in an attempt to come to terms.

In the west, we are used to price tags at the store. In the east, haggling replaces the price tag; neither side loses anything by arguing over the nature and price of a transaction. Buyers and sellers gauge each other’s desire for gain and willingness to lose. As a society, Persians are past masters of this process, keeping their options open for as long as possible and committing to nothing until they have achieved their aims. Which brings us to this item Monday:

A Dutch diplomat says Iran is sending its deputy foreign minister to an international conference on ending insurgency violence in Afghanistan and strengthening the country’s government.

[...]

The U.N.-sponsored conference will bring U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Iranian delegation together, marking a step toward increased diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran.

However, the State Department last week ruled out any “substantive meeting” between U.S. and Iranian officials during the meeting.

Did you catch that? The anonymous Dutch diplomat notified the press, but was careful to make the whole thing seem almost casual. Uncle Sam is just admiring that carpet in the window. Which brings us to Tuesday:

In a cautious first step toward unlocking 30 years of tense relations, senior U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke had a brief but cordial meeting with Iran’s deputy foreign minister Tuesday at an international conference on Afghanistan.

The rare diplomatic approach was the first official face-to-face interplay between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cautioned that the talks between Holbrooke and Iranian diplomat Mehdi Akhundzadeh were promising but not “substantive.”

“Brief but cordial!” “Promising but not substantive!” This is more than the usual diplomatic language: this is a mania for caution. Uncle Sam is asking what the carpet-seller wants for this pretty rug. Next comes the offer — as in today’s news:

The United States used an international meeting on Afghanistan to make an unusual direct diplomatic overture to Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Americans delivered a letter to the Iranians at Tuesday’s meeting in The Hague. The letter asks Iran to help resolve the cases of three detained or missing Americans.

The cases, and the U.S. position on them, were already known. What’s new is the Obama administration’s choice to approach Iran directly, instead of through a go-between.

Oh my goodness! Overtures and direct approaches… Perhaps Secretary Clinton seems a little too interested in that carpet, which means the seller has automatically raised the price in his mind. Thus we also read today:

Iran dismissed American government reports that senior U.S. and Iran envoys had a cordial — and promising — face-to-face exchange at an international conference, saying Wednesday that no “talks” took place.

[...]

Iran’s take on The Hague conference was just as nuanced — not flatly denying that senior U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke and Iranian diplomat Mehdi Akhundzadeh met at a conference to discuss Afghanistan but concentrating on the semantics of whether official talks took place.

To be fair, this is also a matter of domestic consumption: the mullahs in Qom can’t simply walk away from thirty years of “Death to America” and then reintroduce it if negotiations fail. In return for opening to the United States, they want guarantees that their regime is safe and Iran will remain independent. There will be lots of incremental approaches, and some incremental advances, but my guess is that the regime will want to settle all the various issues — nuclear, regional, petroleum — before full normalization of relations. For them, a new US embassy in Tehran is the handshake comes at the end of the haggling.

In other words, the haggling will take a while, so don’t hold your breath.