between a precipitous withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq that would plunge the region into chaos and ignite a bloody civil war, and the successful completion of a mission to restore stability to Iraq and leave it a free and independent nation?

Obama's dangerous plan of surrendering to al Qaeda:

Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

Contrast with this responsible method of bringing the Iraqi war to a victorious close:

Two Iraqi officials say the U.S. and Iraq are close to a deal under which all American combat troops would leave by October 2010 with remaining U.S. forces gone about three years later.

A U.S. official in Washington acknowledges progress has been made on the timelines for a U.S. departure but offered no firm date. Another U.S. official strongly suggested the 2010 date may be too ambitious.

Lemme see, by October 2010, how does that compare to in 16 months from 20 January 2009?

So one answer to the question appears to be four-five months.

Equal credit is allotted for the alternative and alliterative answer (heh): the political party of the politician proposing the plan.