why do people say you cannot set a time frame on a war, when talking about Iraq?

Question

I thought the War was over.. and that we are trying to rebuild now.. why can't we set a time frame on that?

Answer 1

I asked a question similar to this yesterday about how long people would be willing to occupy Iraq. Interesting range of answers. Several tried to compare our military presence in Japan, Germany and Korea. What they overlook with this comparison is the fact that we were not engaged in hot wars in these countries, but rather providing a military presence after hostilities had ended.

The simple fact is that we cannot continue a never-ending war. The Iraqis must take responsibility for their future security. We can provide an indefinite military presence if they do, but we cannot forever remain in the middle of a civil war. There is a difference between aiding a country and occupying it. If the violence in Iraq continues unabated we will be seen as occupiers and they will completely turn on us eventually in favor of any group that can end the violence and restore some form of normalcy to their lives even if it is oppressive in nature.

We cannot win this war if the people are not behind us. This is not a matter of military conquest because we can destroy almost any country we choose, but the political situation will never allow for the type of unrestricted warfare required. So what we are left is victory through a peaceful end to hostilities. While I hope we can achieve this, we cannot force it. Either the Iraqis take a stand against the violence themselves, or at some point we will be forced to abandon the cause. Anyone who denies this fact is deluding themselves.

Answer 2

A time frame give the enemy (iinsugence from many couuntries) a drop dead date as to when to escalate their efforts and take the Iraq governement! Posted a few minutes ago>>>>
We pull out of Iraq when our military commanders deem that the Iraqi government, it's troops that we are training and the police force can stand on it's own. If their past performance, over the last year, is any indication, I see no reason we cannot be gone from there sometime in the next two years. Little by little sector control have been turned over to them and they have handled it fine. When it comes to freedom money and lives are inconsequential, how soon people forget. And I say this as being a father of one of those troops that have been there for two years (every calendar year since the beginning). I have posted this several times on the loss of life. Though we do not want to lose any, and several of those lost we dear friends of mine, what we have lost there is infinitesimal compared to other freedom engagements. Look at Iwo Jima at 7,000 Marines and 30,000 Japanese lost in 30 days, or the battle at Stalingrad wherein some 5 million Russians and Germans dies in a year. We have become a fast food, fast fix it society and it doesn't work that way. If you want to save money stop foreign aide at $480 Billion a year. Freedom is...whatever it takes!

Answer 3

Because you can't. Because wars are a fluid thing, with policies, fighting, deaths, armaments, weather, supplies, public opinion, media, laws, etc. changing daily. Its like trying to nail jello to a tree. Sure, you can set "goals", but that doesn't mean they are going to happen.

Ok, let's say that they choose Jan 1, 2008, hard and firm. Then, on December 29th 2007 some other country drops a nuke on Baghdad (unlikely, but just an example). What do we say "Sorry, gotta run, stinks to be you... we have a tight schedule to keep?"...

Stuff happens.

Answer 4

I don't know good question. Ok I do know If I was beating the heck out of you but told you I was going to stop in 3 Min's to bake you a cake, how would you react? Would you wait till I was bent over checking you cake to get your revenge?

Answer 5

We are obviously in conflict with terrorists (insurgents or whatever you want to call them) and to tell them that our combat forces are leaving on 4/1/08 is just stupid. We all want the troops home as soon as possible. Telling the enemy how/when/where is just irresponsible and the Democrats are wanting this date before the 08 election to use for political purposes

Answer 6

Someone lied to you,...it hasen,t even got started yet,.. just keep watching the news.

Answer 7

One would imagine the time frame would be concluded when Bush appeared years ago with a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him to tell us that the mission had been accomplished...

Answer 8

Very good question.

Unfortunately, Bush and his public relations goons have worked so hard to foster the belief that the terrorists are out there in the shadows, lurking and waiting for the U.S. to leave Iraq so they can attack, that that's what people really believe is going to happen.

Rhetoric is bad because it's so hard to fight against. People recite things like, "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," or "Speaking out against the President is emboldening and empowering the enemy" like the Nazis used to say, "Seig Heil." There's no depth to these words. They're just recitals.

Answer 9

just wait until a democrat takes the oval office...they will expect a victory and a withdrawal in the first 100 days.

Answer 10

Because its a war, not exactly predictable