If you're against a timeline, please answer this question?

Question

Why don't you want the Iraqis to be forced to take over their own security?

I've got news for all you people who claim that to set a timeline is to announce to the terrorists when it's time to attack... Terrorists already know every move we make, whether we announce it or not. The only people in the dark are the American people, who are PAYING for this fiasco.

Answer 1

hey, no fair, GWB has limited your choices to "telling the enemy your intentions" how dare you break away from his paradigm and suggest that other people may be listening too. or that Iraq might actually be able to defend herself. it's all crazy talk.
wow, I was being sarcastic but then I read others answers and now I'm scared.

Answer 2

I'm against a public timeline. PUBLIC TIMELINE. I do want the Iraqis to take over their own security, but I do not want the enemy (heck not even me ) to know how, when, where, why and with what.

ADD: If the the enemy already knows all of our moves then does it matter. And how do you know that the enemy knows all our moves but the American public does not. Can I use logic and apply that you are a terrorist and not an American or are you both?

Answer 3

Somehow, I fail to see your reasoning (if any). I'm against a time line because it gives the enemy a time line also. What fool would not think that the enemy could just relax until we had left Iraq and then take over the country? They would know when we were leaving and could make all their plans around that date. It seems to me that this thought has NOTHING TO DO with wanting the Iraqis to take over their own security. I do think that they (the Iraqis) have been spurred to speeding up their training because they know now that we will not be there forever.

Answer 4

I do. But I know that there are somethings that are based on too many variables to be able to set a timeline to. You do not want to force them and have them fail due to it being too early. Its a careful balance. If the timeline were based on any real military events that happen on the ground I could understand. But picking March 2008 because its your sisters birthday doesn't make much sense. An "event-line" is more realistic.
Other than the timeline having no military relevancy, Congress should not legislate a war. War should not be fought to the whims of a largely ignorant public opinion. I wouldn't want to go to war because the voters thought we should and I wouldn't end one for the same reasons. Those decisions need to be based on military events and conditions.

Answer 5

Time is needed before they will be prepared to take care of themselves. It might be 6 months, it might be 24 months but one should not put a timeline on it.

We are doing the surge right now and that could accelerate the process. By putting a deadline on this, the enemy gets an additional edge.

Answer 6

I want the Iraqi's to take over their own security, I just don't like announcing to the enemy when they can march on in.

Answer 7

If we pull out now...we will surely lose the war. this timeline thing is the dumbest idea yet! hmm...lets tell the terrorists when we are going to leave...they will just chill out until that date...and then when we leave all chaos will happen....iraq will turn into iran and that will be a breeding ground for terror. do you understand this concept?

Answer 8

How will a timeline force them to take over their own security?

Answer 9

I do, but giving the enemy foreknowledge of when you're leaving gives him the oppurtunity to hit you when you leaving or stockpile for the day after you leave. it's idiocy. The iraqi's need to get the Sunnis in the ground before there will be peace and I say let the US help them do it.

Answer 10

I am against an announced timeline. Why tell everyone on the fricken planet what we are going to do?