Substitute the word "plan" for the word "timetable"

[matt819]

I know this is somewhat arbitrary, but think about it. This is precisely what each candidate means when they address the issue.

If you do not believe in timetables, if you do not have a timetable, the gist of it is that you do not have a plan. You have a state of perpetual war and the attendant perpetual costs and mounting casualties.

If you have a timetable, it means you have a plan. Regardless of the impact on the so-called global war on terror, this war has to come to an end at some point. One hundred years is absurd. Withdrawing tomorrow is not logistically possible, even if it's what you would like to see happen. Proposing some sort of timetable suggests that you have a plan, a vision of how things will look 1, 3, 5, 10 years from now. It means you recognize that you have to plan - have a timetable - for addressing other military needs or for responding to other threats (ideally real ones).

Okay, Sen. McFeeble, you say you object to timetables. What's your plan? Forget the 100 years idiocy. Tell me how the US military will respond to the resurgent threat in Afghanistan. How will you deal with a shrinking military and reduced enlistments? Over what period of time? Fine. Don't use the word timetable. But if you have a plan, it surely has time constraints and time demands. Tell us what they are. And perpetual war is not an option.

[BlooInBloo]

1. They think they've suitable tainted the word "timetable".