People who don't want to announce a timetable for withdrawal

[Laura PourMeADrink]

have an illogical argument that this would abet the enemy. If you truly want to get out, say, for example, in June 2007, it makes no difference whether you announce it or not. The bottom line outcome is the same. On that date, you won't be there anymore. If you think all hell will break loose it will happen in both scenarios.

[Redstone]

1. Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course!

Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course! Stay the course!

They think if they repeat it enough, we'll buy it.

Like you, I ain't having any.

Redstone

[napi21]

2. Did you wtch Jack Reed on WJ this AM?

He's a Dem and is going to introduce a "non-binding" resolution in the House today to commit to redeploy US troops based on certain milestones, but NO TIMELINE.

He also said he believes the US will have a certain # of troops in Iraq indefinately, the same as we do in Korea, and Europe.

[bdamomma]

3. yea and how long were in Korea

about 50 years........this is sickening, it's going to just get worse, and I don't see much sacrificing from this administration/regime.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. I did see him. All I could think was, does Jack Reed have a

stick up his butt? Wow, that is the most stiff and serious man I have ever seen. I know, horribly serious subject - but had to comment on this man's demeanor.

I agree, this is the most luke warm endorsement for ending the war that anyone could muster. AND he still implied he couldn't get any Repigs yet. This is very disheartening. I wonder if we hadn't caught Zarqawi....

[Jim__]

5. It's your argument that is illogical.

You assume, without stating the basis for your assumption, that if the "enemy" knows that we are going to leave in June 2007; they would not alter their tactics. By altering their tactics, based on this knowledge, they may be able to alter the conditions that will exist in June 2007.

Suppose I'm playing poker. I have 3 aces; I know my opponent has 4 clubs.I don't know what his 5th card is; but I do know that he will not bet more than $10 on his current hand. Does this knowledge change my chances of winning this hand? If you don't think so, I'd like to play poker with you sometime.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Sorry, but it doesn't matter whether or not they alter their tactics or

not. And sure, I will play you in poker any day. Last week I played against 6 men and 1 woman. I won and she came in second. Not saying I could do it again, but hell, I did it once.

Ok - given the scenario that we get out in June, 2007. You have two routes: announce it, or not announce it.

Scenario 1 - Announce it
The insurgency can, as you say, alter their tactics. Their tactic now, is to attack. The only way they can alter that is to not attack until June 2007. After June 2007 they will do as they please.

Scenario 2 - Don't announce a timetable
In this scenario, we can assume, according to your argument, that they will not change their tactics, and will continue to attack. After June 2007, they will do as they please.

See, same outcome in June. HOWEVER, thanks, you actually helped me prove that it is quite possible that a timetable announcement strategy has more benefit !!! If it means one year of peace when they change their tactics and don't attack. But I don't really give it much credence anyway. If they wanted us out, why not stop attacking NOW to lure us into leaving?

The whole subject of timetable announcements is totally moot. The bigger question is get out or not get out.

[Jim__]

7. Are these really the only 2 options that you can come up with?

Attack or don't attack hardly exhausts their options.

The fact that this little bit of discussion has already altered your opinion as to whether or not a timetable announcement can make a difference, as in: HOWEVER, thanks, you actually helped me prove that it is quite possible that a timetable announcement strategy has more benefit !!! ; should be a very strong indication to you that you need to think about this some more.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. You tell me, please. The only other thing I could think of

would be that say we said that we would pull out half the troops in December. If we said, Company/Platoon XYZ was leaving on December 1st at 9am on XYZ Road, I would agree with you, they could create a mission to lay bombs on XYZ Road. But, I can't imagine any scenario where our military would announce any such details, or not have a plan to get the troops out safely. Surely they would have the same redeployment plan under any withdrawal scenario.

I really do want to know if there is a downside to announcing a withdrawal timetable - so please tell me what you are thinking.

The majority of the US public wants us to get out in a year. Over 70% of the servicemen want us out within a year. Close to 90% of the Iraqis want a timetable to get out. So who the hell is left to please????? Washington politicians and their donors?????

[Jim__]

9. The question of whether or not we are out in a year and whether or

not we announce a timetable for when we are out are different questions. I definitely want us out within a year. However, there are a number of ramifications to making an announcement. People calling for an announced timetable believe the announcement will have an effect. John Kerry, for instance, has said that by publicly announcing a timetable, we force the Iraqis to stand on their own. I think there is a benefit in that.

My real concern is that if we leave Iraq within the next year - just kind of plug along for a year and then pull out, there will indeed be a bloodbath. I hope we can avoid that. I think the best hope for avoiding that is to get international, and specifically regional, help in resolving the problem. I'm not sure how announcing a timetable will effect diplomacy. I have read people who know a lot about Iraq (Nir Rosen for one) say that if we leave, there will be civil war, and this will draw in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. I also think Turkey will get involved if the Kurds form their own independent nation. If this is correct, the governments of these countries know it; and they have a vested interest in resolving this issue without a civil war. We may be able to get them to contribute to a peace keeping force when we leave - and it may be easier to get this if we don't publicly announce a date when we are leaving.

I don't have much hope that we can get any sort of good resolution in Iraq. Since we started this, I do think we have an obligation to try to bring about as good, or really the least bad, of a solution as we can get. I think we need to get out; but we also need to get out in the best way possible.

I think another administration might avoid a bloodbath. I don't have much hope that the bush admin will. But, I'm hoping that even they will eventually come to understand that we seriously need help here. I'm hoping we get that help.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Thanks

I see your points. I suppose if the administration was willing to launch a true peace initiative with all factions and neighbors, that is our only hope for a successful outcome. And we will need any leverage we could get. But, given the administration's record, I'm not very optimistic either. Guess we would find out if their true motive is to stay forever if they refused to carry out such an initiative.

Your: "I think another administration might avoid a bloodbath. I don't have much hope that the bush admin will. But, I'm hoping that even they will eventually come to understand that we seriously need help here. I'm hoping we get that help.

This may be the reason that they don't want to leave Iraq. Because they think it would fall apart and then they will look even worse for starting the whole thing to begin with. Every single solution that Democrats are offering, IMHO, should be prefaced with the statement: "Bush's insistance on invading Iraq has left us with an extraordinary difficult situation. There are many problems with staying and many with leaving."

Maybe this is why Assclown said that it would be the next administration that would have to deal with withdrawal. Thanks to you, it just became crystal clear that he will never lead us out - he doesn't know how to, successfully, and seeking help from those most affected is, as my friend from Oklahoma says, "too much like right."