Why not just go to the sidelines first?

New York Times, I am a foreigner, but since what America does mean more for the world than the famous butterfly flapping its wings, I hope you allow me a question in reference to your editorial of March 29, “Legislating Leadership on Iraq”. Why is it that with respect to where the US troops in Iraq should go, we only hear about the options of keeping them on the frontline, in Baghdad, or sending them home to the backlines, to Kansas, when instead the normal thing to do would be to first have them go to the sidelines, the borders of Iraq, to see how it goes? Could it be that the US is currently so divided that this option is too middle of the road? If so, you have a much bigger problem than Iraq, since divisiveness is the real weapon for mass-destruction of a nation. Being from Venezuela, I should know.