posted
Am I seriously the only person who thinks that limiting the discussion on a timeline for IRaq to "We will withdraw the troops in X days." to be pretty stupid?
I was reading about John McCain's comments after his trip to Iraq and he says "I think the biggest mistake we could make is having a calendar dictate the troop strengths over there." The White House and it's supporters have also often criticized this idea. And I agree with it.
However, I don't understand why this is the sort of timeline we're talking about. What I expect we should have is a timeline expressing certain goals and when we expect to achieve them. When I'm working with timelines, that's what I'm working with. Isn't that something we have a good reason to expect?
Tied to the success of certain of these goals should be troop redeployment and withdrawal, but just having a "Troops leave by the Ides of Smarch." doesn't make any sense to me. What we should have, what we should have had since the start was a time-map, subject to revision, on how the planners realistically think things should go. Something like, "within x to y months, we expect to achieve goal A and have z% of B working smoothly" and so on.
But, looking around for timeline proposals, all I'm seeing is that simplistic "bring troops home by this date" stuff. Are there actually serious proposals of the sort I'm talking about or should I lose even more faith in our government and people?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the military has specific forecasts about when it will be recalling certain units and how the troop rotations will work. Included in this is the potential for both escalation and resolution in any theater of operation. Broadcasting this information to the public is not sound strategically.
posted
It seems to me that the military strategy is totally and utterly irrelevant to what Squicky was saying. When can we expect to have, say, the sewers of Baghdad working? (Just an example, for all I know they're working already.) To have IED attacks reduced to X per month, on average? To have a good road, with no bomb craters, from Baghdad to Mosul, and patrolled by Iraqi military, or better still civil police? That kind of thing is what's being asked.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one reason we can't set a deadline for the Ides of Smarch is the lousy weather that's inherent to the month
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really just wish these people would act like they know what they are talking about instead of pretending to, as if they don't want to admit that they have no idea what they are doing and having from the beginning. Offensive, but it seems rather true to me... They really don't have a clear plan. I got throroughly frustrated with Bush practically wanting to pass the buck to another president to deal with.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that assigning a date for withdrawl is probably an error. But creating a timeline and schedule based on specific goals that can be decisively branded as "achieved" or "unachievable" would do a lot to assure people that a) we aren't in Iraq indefinitely, b) we have a plan for success, and c) we aren't willing to let casualties continue to mount without definitive measures of success or failure.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM got my intentions. I was talking about a much larger area than just military strategy. To the extent that it would enter into these timelines, I'm not an idiot. I don't expect the timeline to include such things that would hurt us strategically.
I certainly hope that people are seeing what's going on in Iraq as far more than just the military. cal and airman, do you think that success rests mostly on military achievements? I would figure even the more military aspects of things, such as achieving stable zones, rely on many more things than just boots on the ground.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taken all that as a given Sterling, the thing that's getting to me (or rather the one out of the many things that get to me that I'm focusing on) is that the people who are calling for a timeline seem all to be calling for the stupid "Troops out by" timeline and not anything like what I'm talking about. I mena, what that crap? I'm a smart guy, but this is totally not my area and I came up with this with no problem.
The sheer stupid ineffectiveness of the opposition makes me want to embrace conspiracy theories that they're actually in collusion or some such.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting idea, Mr. Squicky. I hadn't considered it before. Thinking about it now, the only reason I can think of for being opposed to it would be that it would give 'insurgents' a clear set of objectives for what to blow up or whom to murder each month.
Which, really, poses more benefits than drawbacks if you think about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Unlike his predecessor, or any President since Lincoln, President Bush has taken ownership of this war. He sold it to the American People and to the world at large. He used up his political capital defending it. He is the one who tried to gather all of the political capital from its quick success, and as a result, he is the one that is taking the heat for its problems.
President Bush the Elder was also involved in a Persian Gulf war, but he had people like Powell and Schwartzcoff do briefings, explain details, take the heat and take the spot-light. They were professionals, non-political, and did their jobs without political motivation. As a result, it can be argued, President Bush I did not get reelected. He did a much better job at running a country and a war simultaneously, but was not considered a War President.
Perhaps to make sure he didn't repeat his father's mistake, or perhaps to overshadow his non-war history, President Bush II took every chance he could to tie his star to the war. He proclaimed himself a "War President."
There were no professional, diligent commanders in the field who took the spot-light. Was this because the media refused to focus on them, or that none of sufficient charisma existed, or is it because those professionals disagreed with White House assesments and policy, and were dismissed. Those that remained are too political to accept responsibilities for mistakes, or too smart to accept the the responsibilities for the mistakes of their superiors.
A time line has become part of the "politicalization" of the war. Sure there are good logical professional ways to set up some types of time-lines, todo lists, etc. But the politicians, seeing this as a sign of weekness, refuse to allow them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
