Libs or cons? Why "Time" instead of benchmarks of success?

Question

The Iraqis want us out of their country (at least some do), and we want our troops home.

Instead of stating "we will be out of Iraq in ____ months" why are we not stating, "...our presence will be available for you until these [very specific and finite] goals for your country have been met by your people"?

For instance: "...the Iraqi government, in partnership with the USA, declare that the following sovereign goals will be met by our [Iraqi] people prior to the departure of U.S troops..."

This would allow them the responsibility to act on their own behalf and meet goals that they establish for themselves.

Without a clearly defined picture of what a 'win' looks like, I highly doubt we can create it, and I can't imagine we will recognize it if we see it. What defines success? And can we reach the benchmarks that we don't know about in "time"?

Perhaps this is already being done and I don't know about it?

Educate me~

Answer 1

Benchmarks is a great idea but unfortunately Bush would not buy that either. He has no exit plan at all no matter what is used by others to remove people.

Answer 2

This has been the problem; no one has been listening.

First, to carry out and complete the current plan that is taking place right now, it is too soon to tell exactly how long it will take to finish what they began.

Next, the Iraqi government has been told by not only the President, but also by congressional leaders, that the benchmarks which were proposed are to be met. This is why congress just agreed to a new resolution and NOT include time-lines.

Also, to give away a time when we would be pulling out our service people (men and women), would empower the enemy by giving them time to create a new plan to disable the newly formed government. When we look at it realistically, it took us (United States) 2 centuries to get ourselves together. With the help the the U.S. and the U.N. and the E.U. this process can go much faster for Iraq.

Answer 3

There are benchmarks for the Iraqis - but Bush doesn't ever firm them up enough to make them binding. Congress has said "Ok Mr Bush, we'll go along as long as you stick to the plan you created. Stop, deviate, or back up and we'll pull the money for COMBAT operations and trigger sending troops home. Put up or pull out - the people have spoken and it's time you were accountable for your actions or inactions as the case may be."

Answer 4

Putting a time limit wouldnt be good. Thats giving the enemies of the pro-democracy Iraqis a chance to say, Ok, you guys hide til this date, when we will be out of here. Also, you can never predict what could happen in the middle east, we might need to stay longer. Setting a date just gives our enemies an idea of when we can be strucken, when they can go on the offensive.

Answer 5

Because the president was giving unlimited time in these six years and his accomplishment his absolutely nothing.

But I do agree, until the job has not been yet, we should not pull out.

Answer 6

Because bush and his handlers can't be trusted w/facts. You have to give them a set date, or they will twist data to meet their needs(read halliburton). It's like having a two year old, you can't say "no, because that will burn you", you just say NO!