Does this sound inconsistent to anyone else?

1. We are fighting in Iraq because we wish to "take the fight to the enemy", so they attack us there, not at home.
2. We will stay in Iraq until the Iraqi security forces can adequately fight "the enemy".

But wait - if we're going to cut and run as soon as the Iraqi security forces can fight, we're no longer taking the fight to the enemy. The enemy is free to attack us on our shores. (Given, of course, that which the Bush Administration stresses, i.e., that most of the Iraqi insurgents are in fact foreign fighters, so would have no cause to come into contant with Iraqi security forces unless American soldiers were in Iraq.) If we really want to take the fight to the enemy, doesn't that mean staying in Iraq until the enemy is defeated? But that conflicts with 2.

Somethin' fishy is goin' on here.