Credible?

Speaking in China, the President said:

Those elected leaders in Washington who do not support our policies in Iraq have every right to voice their dissent. They also have a responsibility to provide a credible alternative. The stakes are too high, and the national interest too important, for anything otherwise.

Absolutely. I think it's about time we had some credible alternatives on what to do about Iraq. Mr. President, where's yours?

"Staying the course" is a slogan, not a credible alternative. "Standing down as they stand up" might be shorthand for a credible alternative, if it weren't for the consistent reports that the Iraqis aren't "standing up" anywhere near as fast as predicted, and that the existing units are riddled with factionalism and corruption.
"Making good progress" and "more Iraqis taking more responsibility" might suggest a credible alternative, if they were statements attached to actual objective metrics and not merely vague rhetoric.

Maybe it's me, but I usually view credible plans as having measurable objectives and deadlines. With the upcoming election in Iraq in December, we're just about at the end of the closest thing to such a plan yet floated by the administration. So, in a few weeks, what's the credible alternative the President has?

Have we got a specific performance plan on training Iraqis? Just what does a batallion that has "stood up" look like, and how far away are we from seeing it? How many like it do we need before we leave? How are we measuring "defeating the terrorists?" Most reports suggest there are now more terrorists in Iraq than when we arrived, so are we really prepared to make that a condition for our departure? The recent attacks in Jordan suggest that Iraq-based terrorists are now "taking their show on the road." Do we have credible evidence that we are actually helping the Iraqis, the region, or the world, here?

Even the President's allies are adrift, forced to concoct their own reasons for our continued presence, since they have no actual plan to give as a reason. David Brooks, in this morning's New York Times, suggests that our departure would perhaps bring not just a civil war, but a regional, or even world, one. Apparently, leaving our boys there as targets somehow distracts the Iraqis from really focussing on their actual enemies, each other. How or why this would ever improve to a point where we could leave is, sadly, left to the reader to imagine. "Iraq will implode if we leave" is an argument that loses credibility as, every day, Iraq shows signs of imploding under us. Even Brooks admits that the President isn't putting out credible information.

So, if the criticism of Murtha's resolution is that we need credible alternatives, would someone please take the time to articulate what credible policy is currently in place? Anyone? Please?