For months now, since the Democrats assumed the majority, they have accomplished little in Congress except to push to get out of Iraq in one way or the other. At each of these attempts, they have failed. Their strategy appears to be: Even though we can't pass an attempt to limit/leave/retreat/redeploy, we can win (both the Presidency and seats in Congress) by consistently losing on these issues. In other words, they win by losing.
Barak Obama is an example here. Unlike most other Democrats, he has opposed the Iraq War from the start, and been critical of Hillary Clinton's position on her vote to go to Iraq. Despite the consistent predictions that leaving would result in carnage, he wants us out of Iraq now.
Yet, now, with the aim of eliminating al Qaeda hideouts in Waziristan, he says he would invade Pakistan. He'd invade an ally. He'd invade a nuclear ally.
We're winning in Iraq. The Surge is working. Leaving now (or in the foreseeable future) would undo that. He'd invade an ally. Does Obama really expect that no consequences would fall out of these decisions? He'd have us lose a fight we are winning and enter a fight that we might not have to stones to win.
This is an Upside-Down, Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass view of things.