Before we invaded Iraq-we warn Hussein if he did not give up the WMDs we would attack his country. We gave him 90 days-30 days-48 hours-warning after warning. He did not budge, we attacked, and the Iraq war began. Now in all that time Hussein and his government could have destroyed every piece of evidence that could have linked him to even the thought of making a WMD. Was that timetable-all those warnings-foolish or a political and tatical strategy? Now the Dems want a timetable to end the war, the president got a surge of soldiers. Is the surge really working or are the terrorists waiting for the US to declare the surge successful and pull back some troops-then the insurgency will start again? The Dems timetable-does that put pressure on the Iraqis or does that warn the terrorist, so they wait, then attack. What is the difference between the warnings Iraq received before the invasion and the timetable the Dems want? Are timetables in war-foolish or are they political and strategic?
2007-03-29 06:46:34 · 14 answers · asked by E 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The only thing you would accomplish with a timetable is to let your enemy know how long he needs to lay low until you leave.... Kinda like yelling out your position when you are playing hide and go seek...
2007-03-29 06:51:51 · answer #1 · answered by M B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Timetables as presented in legislative bills is war-foolish.
Any commander worth his salt will try to predict time tables for achieving any objective, but knows that these are just predictions. And in no case would a commander allow such timetables to fall into the hands of the enemy.
Yet some in congress feel that announcing timetables to the world would make good strategic sense. Since it doesn't make good strategic sense, I have to wonder what the real agenda is for those that support this bill that gives a timetable for withdrawal.
In war, you can be forced to withdraw by overwhealming force of the opposition. While you don't like it, you can accept such an occurrance.
In war, you can strategically reposition your forces in an effort to increase your strategic and tactical positions in order to bring overwhealming force against the enemy and cause them to withdraw.
This is called winning.
Just to withdraw with no strategic or tactical purpose designed to overwhelm the enemy is simply defeat and surrender.
This is called losing.
In my mind, you can call it whatever you want, but it should be clear to anyone looking at the war as a military endeavor that withdrawal without first overwhelming the enemy is simply surrender motivated by defeatist mentality.
2007-03-29 06:59:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is not a war. This is an occupation of a country that is having its own civil war.
In a war, there is a single opposite side, and victory can be determined by defeating them. That doesn't apply here. And staying until there is no conflict in Iraq will take decades.
There are no other measurable goals or other ways to determine if we're succeeding. So, a time-table is our only measure. Just like any other project management situation.
As far as Saddam -- he did give up his WMDs. Assuming he ever had them, they were shipped out of Iraq before the invasion. So, that time-table accomplished exactly what we claimed we wanted -- Saddam to get rid of his WMDs.
2007-03-29 06:51:03 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Queda is really hoping and praying for a withdrawl date. Then they will launch MASSIVE attacks in the last months we are there and then claim to everyone that they drove us out and defeated us.
Meanwhile we have idiotic liberals who have no idea who or what we are fighting and what the stakes are. Timetables for withdrawl serve no purpose except to leave before the job is done.
2007-03-29 07:02:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time tables and goals are a part of everyday life for most people. The Iraqis have had 4 years to do something and they ahve failed. They need to have their feet held to the fire.
The setting of a time table is a strategic move.
2007-03-29 07:47:28 · answer #5 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is already helping. Military leaders are telling their subordinates to "get it done NOW".
No 18 month training plans for Iraq security forces. Do it in 3 months!
And stop talking about terrorists. That term obscures who it is that is attacking us.
2007-03-29 07:04:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Timetables should never be used. Setting one before a war lets the enemy prepare. Setting one to end it only lowers morale (no one wants to be the last casualty), and gives the enemy the ability to rest and rebuild.
2007-03-29 06:54:58 · answer #7 · answered by Curtis B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Timetables in war and obviously politics are often very foolish. Just look at the current congress.
2007-03-29 06:49:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Foolish??? No STUPID? YES
Like the asker stated, we will give the enemy all the time he needs to regroup and begin anew when we leave...This is why Military Commanders need to make the decisions..Polititions can only lose the war, if allowed to decide....VietNam proved that!!!
2007-03-29 06:51:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the time table is for the Iraqi government.. a slap on the a*s to let them know to get their butts in gear and take over. and if they do their job by then, they will be able to resists the terrorists.. so them knowing won't matter.
2007-03-29 06:50:30 · answer #10 · answered by pip 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋