We need to get American troops out of Iraq. At least, that’s what we need people to think.

In one of the few creative things to be written about the American occupation of Iraq in quite some time, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) published a piece in Monday’s Washington Post in which he proposed the United States create a timetable for withdrawal of its forces “if Iraqis fail to reach a political solution by the end of the year.”

On its surface, this proposal seems like nothing new. Some Americans have been pushing for withdrawal before America even entered Iraq.

Lately, that movement has picked up steam, sparked by people like Cindy Sheehan, the controversial anti-war mother whose son, Casey, was slain in Iraq. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last month showed only 39 percent of Americans think invading Iraq was the right thing to do. A whopping 63 percent want to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq.

Last month, between 150,000 and 300,000 people converged on Washington D.C. in protest of the war.

Sheehan is a fascinating figure in the debate. Seen as a hero by the anti-war crowd and she is admired for her courage in speaking out- particularly against the president for misleading the country into war with talk of weapons of mass destruction. As the mother of a veteran, she brings a grass-roots credibility to the movement that caused one New York Times columnist to claim her moral authority on the issue is “absolute.”

On the pro-war side, however, Sheehan is vilified as a boorish camera-hound, using her son’s death to push a radical political agenda and establish her own celebrity.

Whatever the truth, there can be no denying Sheehan’s involvement has turned up the volume on the debate, giving a face to the anti-war movement that is a far cry from the stereotypical hippy-figure hawkish pundits like to portray.

Of course, there is still a large contingency of Americans who want the United States to stay the course in Iraq for as long as it takes.

This brings us back to Levin’s proposal.

Levin pointed out that about the only thing the splintered factions in Iraq have in common is an interest in keeping American troops there. The Shiites need us until Iraqi security forces can fight insurgents on their own. The Kurds would like for us to remain for the impending future. And Sunni Arab leaders need us to defend them from those who might seek vengeance for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

As long as our forces are there indefinitely to protect everyone and act as a nation-building wet-nurse, these factions can continue to bicker and accomplish nothing toward establishing a constitutional democracy. But removing our forces – or threatening to do so – may provide just the kick in the pants they need to start to cooperate.

Think of it in terms of a classroom. If you have a group project due at the end of the semester, you’re going to goof around and bicker about group roles until the week before it’s due. But if that project is due next week, a lot of those petty differences magically disappear.

Creating a timetable or deadline is not a cut-and-run proposal, nor will it give hope to insurgents and terrorists. Deadlines, after all, can always be extended. Our government is already doing it to our own troops – just ask any Iraq veteran whose tour was extended thanks to “stop loss.”

As Levin wrote, making it clear to Iraqis that we will create a timetable for withdrawal, “will insert a healthy dose of mind-focusing reality that is their best hope for defeating the insurgents and becoming a nation.”

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.