Reply #10: Ricks' shows the complexity of the problem, but also the need to define a clear goal

[Mass]

He is very well versed on these issues, but his philosophy continues to be that it is our role to make things happen there and that we cannot leave if they do not happen. There are two issues here, strategy and tactics and tactics must follow strategy. So, the first question is to define the end goal. What is it? Getting the troops out of Iraq safely for them or assuring a stable governement in Iraq? Those two goals are not necessarily compatible and at some point a choice need to be made.

I think that it is because this has not been defined that people in the anti-war movement are worried, even if they should recognize that, for the first time, there is a plan to get the troops out of Iraq quickly. I guess that Ricks is right. If our priority is to assure a reasonable stability in Iraq, it will take a very long time. But there are two issues here: is it the US role to do that and do the US people want to? The questions asked by Ricks are well posed, but first we need to answer the question concerning the ultimate goal of this plan and this is what I do not see in Obama's answer. I am not surprised I do not see it, but it worries me, not because I do not trust the man, but because without a clearly stated decision, events can easily get in the way.

You're right, there are no easy answers, but there is probably also no middle of the way answers here. Either get the hell out of there quickly (as quickly as you can without endangering the troops), or define a political mission to help the Iraqis and be honest that it will take more than 3 years, but no, you cannot do both.