Would This Clear-Up The Iraqi Timetable Withdrawal Debate . . . . .. .?

Question

And is it even possible that it's already been done ?

Liberals want a timetable for withdrawal . Conservatives say 'no way' because it only serves to alert the enemy of military plans .


So how about giving the Iraqi Leadership a 'timetable' ?
And. . . Haven't we already done that ?
Didn't President Bush say that Iraq has until this fall to show great progress in governing their own country ?

So why go public with military plans ?
Aren't the Conservatives right about not giving 'timetables' that only serve the enemy and not the safety of our troops and the Iraqi people ?

BTW, I took the time and effort to post this . . minus any insults. . so I ask that you take the time and effort to answer the questions. . minus any insults . . . Fair Enough ?

Steve - I like ya. . BUT I didn't ask you to turn around anything . And THAT is the problem with the left . No matter how a question is politely worded, Liberals see it as an opportunity to post their own notions. . . minus answering the posted question .

Mike10 - Re-read the posted questions and then try and tell me that you even bothered to answer even one of them !!

Answer 1

Earnest T ... You really make us earn our two points, don't you. Not a complaint ... Just a comment. To your questions —

• Would this clear-up the Iraqi withdrawal debate?
Yes, it would, BUT those who oppose just to oppose will never go for it.

• So how about giving the Iraqi Leadership a 'timetable'?
And haven't we already done that?
Behind closed doors, I think we already have. You're right.

• So why go public with military plans?
I don't know; there's no good reason for revealing our strategies and timetables. Generals Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, Abrams, and MacArthur, to name a few, are looking down on us in disbelief at what they're seeing.

One person who answered (no need to mention his name) posed this question: "WHEN DO we get out?"

A fair question, but one that should never be answered aloud. My feelings are these:
• When you let the military do what they've been trained to do, the job gets done. I'm no diplomat, nor a defense strategist, but I just wish the country would let our men and women do it the way they know best.

• My feelings about the draft can fill a book, so I'll spare you the details. I'll say this, though: I can forgive President Nixon for his Watergate-related misdeeds, but suspending the draft was a "grand mal" mistake. Yes, I know that Vietnam was winding down and we didn't need as many active duty personnel, but suspending the draft has allowed more than 30 years of American new borns to be raised in an atmosphere where they may have mistakenly believed that defending our country is "the government's" job. Frankly, I fear that many are too consumed with their Playstations to worry about ANYthing past their bedroom door. The safety and security of their homeland just doesn't fit into their plans. Having an all-volunteer force has had many advantages, but I feel this policy does more harm than good. It almost sends the signal that we can't be bothered with fully providing for our military needs. It also forces us, it seems, to plan a time for withdrawal even before the first shot is fired.

• I don't want to sound like I'm down on the young; forgive me if it seems that way. However, legions of young people think Bill Maur, Al Franken, David Letterman, and Jon Stewart are credible news sources and political analysts.

• And back to the original point: "WHEN DO we get out?" Well, lets look at other strategic locations around the globe to see about withdrawing from these places:
-- Europe: World War II ended in 1945, yet as of June 2006 (see my link below), the U.S. continued to maintain a force of 97,000 military personnel throughout the European theater. Do you think the Berlin Wall would have fallen? Do you think the Warsaw Pact would have dissolved? Do you think the Soviet Union would have volunteered to abandon communism if we had left Europe according to some timetable?
-- Japan: Japan was defeated by the U.S. and its allies in 1945. Yet, more than 60 years after that conflict ended, the U.S. has kept a force that's 34,000 strong at the ready. Yes, we're still there, closely allied with Japan, and our presence doesn't seem to have hurt them at all.
-- South Korea: That ceasefire was signed in 1953, but no permanent treaty has been agreed to. Yet, nearly 55 years later, the U.S. has 29,000 troops deployed. What should their timetable for return have been?
-- And did you know there are 126,000 U.S. personnel aboard U.S. Navy ships around the world? How about their timetable? Do you think they should come home right away too?

We tried isolationism; it doesn't work! It just doesn't work.

Once again, Earnest T., thanks for a good question.

Answer 2

I think the issue of when the US would withdraw is a very complex one. One that cannot be addressed simplistically.

I am not saying that your question is simplistic either.

In my mind, the issue here is that the Iraqi people demonstrated overwhelmingly that they want to be free and self governing. Therefore a government was elected and a constitution was approved...all by the people of Iraq.

The question then, is the elected government of Iraq in a state where it can fulfill its obligations to the people under their constitution in an atmosphere of terroristic threats from inside Iraq and agressive theistic dictatorships from countries surrounding her.

Setting a time table for the government to meet in reaching this goal may have the benefit of impressing on the government of Iraq that time is of the essence. However, what if the government cannot demonstrate significant progress within that timetable?

I dont' think that time tables therefore have much value in the reality of the situation there.

The US has committed itself to the defence of Iraq against islamic terrorist and had dedicated itself to do everything possible to help that government get on its feet in a strong enough condition so that it can fulfill the hope of the Iraqi people and their trust and confidence in America to help them do that.

No one, democrat or republican or even military can predict when that will become a reality.

America is very strong because Americans are strong. If we quit on this country, then no country will ever trust us in the future.

We gave our word. In the final analysis, how good is the word of America?

Answer 3

You are quite correct, we have pushed Iraq with timetables already. Numerous times in fact but the progress has been thin. I would agree that a quiet agreement with Iraq would be the best way to go but we've tried that and tried that again to no avail and we keep on protecting them irregardless of their progress. Trying again will likely yield the same result, so by being open and public, Iraq has much more accountability before the world's eyes. also, yes, the enemy knows; but Iraq also knows the enemy knows and that should ramp up the pressure for them to perform not just sit on their hands.

Answer 4

Whats the problem liberals? Arent the Iraqis human beings? You are insulted that the president didnt help in new orleans quickly enough, but what the hell does new orleans do for us? It was all poor minorities, and Bush ended up sending billions their way, but that wasnt enough apparently. So why is it wrong to stay and help 24 million iraqis? Maybe we should pull out of new orleans too, because there is no way we are getting back what we put into that city.
Why is is wrong when conservatives want to help people? If it wasnt about people, would we be in the cities? no, we would be in the oil fields, and thats it.

Answer 5

This isn't a coordinated army we're facing, it's a loose pack of criminals- like the mafia. They hit and run, rather than stand and fight. You can send in as many troops as you like, but our continued presence there is a recruitment booster for them. The Iraqi's problems are now worsened by our good intentions, because they won't begin policing themselves until we've left. They need to learn that freedom isn't free, and they can't while we're holding their hands.

Our responsibility has never been toward the safety of the Iraqi people, but to the safety of our own people. That safety is jeopardized by our perceived continual military occupation, long after the war is over.

We toppled a dictator, and thoroughly searched the place to be certain there are no weapons of mass destruction. Just call a win a win, and walk away. Beating on a dead horse is futile, and disturbing to watch. We lower ourselves by engaging such a pitiful enemy as this insurgency. Even if we eradicated them, we'd still look bad for beating up the retarded kid. It compromises our role as a voice of reason in an unstable region, and guarantees that we can have no power to broker peace.

With the Presidents lack of stated goals, it's hard to see any progress. The terrorists multiply daily, and they get credit for wins when they attack their own people, rather than U.S. Military targets. The only thing worse than beating up the retarded kid, is looking like you lost to the retarded kid. It validates their tactics, and their cause, to the entire Middle East. It was a foolish and directionless fight for him to engage us in, and Congress is right to pull the plug any way they can. The only way to lose this war is to keep fighting it, because it diminishes the victory we've already acheived.

Answer 6

First - it's not just liberals who want a withdrawal. Look at the numbers and you'll see many cons do too.

Yes Bush has given Iraq a timetable - but the congress is doing what it got elected to do - stop the war. It is Mr Bush who refuses to even indicate a possible withdrawal scenario in spite of what the voters so clearly said they wished.

Congress would be very pleased if Bush would make a plan that includes withdrawal in a reasonable period of time - even a promise to do so might be acceptable. But Bush does not - so Congress has to force him to do the right thing.

Answer 7

the thing is.. they haven't shown much progress.. at least not enough to make the people here at home happy.. so the people with the money have decided that they need to raise the bar a little.... if you had a child that was blowing your money in college.. and not getting anything done.. not going to class.. not getting the grades.. but still using your money.. wouldn't you tell him .. "Hey.. get the grades or do it on your own money".. that's the way I think of a timeline. yes Bush set a date ... but he set no consequences.. nothing to enforce the date.. there has to be insensitive or why would the Iraqi's listen?

Answer 8

We're in Iraq for whatever reason is in the Bush administration's agenda. For some reason they want the Kurds to remain in power because they placed a Kurd leader into Iraqi presidency. The other ethnic groups in Iraq never liked the Kurds; they are to them like thieving gypsies who are similar to illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S., only worse. So whatever reason Bush wants them in power instead of the true Iraqi people I don't know.

Liberals want out because the war is costing trillions, around 12 billion a month, and it's a disasterous mess that can't be repaired. Going public with the withdrawal I'm guessing is just for political or theatric reasons. You rarely ever know the real truth behind politics.

Answer 9

You know that will never happen but we can only hope that no insults or stupid conspiracy theoris are thrown in. Good Idea since you never want to give your enemies an idea from everything I read on military planning but then you have such great military minds like Kerry and Pelosi who know better always.

Answer 10

liberals want a time table to promote their agenda. I find it hard to believe that the democrats want anything more than defeat in Iraq. ex. stop funding the troops, let the enemy know when we are leaving, tell the terrorist we are wire tapping them. the Democrats will stop at nothing for political gain including the aid of our enemies