Iraq Time Horizon Timetables

kenmabmcc · Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Iraq Time Horizon Timetables

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2mjmV-V0SS1A5BXfQQXUcLeg2WAD92MSC0O0

Quote:

Changes in the Bush administration's rhetoric over the past 16 months on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:

Is McCain still calling for indefinite occupation of Iraq,
and victory,
while the bush administration is negotiating a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops ?

Wink

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6185

A little off topic but relevant to the time table controversy. I've been wondering about this.... McCain isn't the Republican's favorite choice. That's common knowledge.

Aside from the fact that much of this turnaround has followed what Obama has been saying all along about getting the troops out in an orderly fashion, is it possible Bush is in some strange way trying to pay back McCain for his "maverick" stance against Bush that we hear so much about?

But wait. That can't really be it. We know McCain has voted with Bush 80 to 100% of the time in the last few years. So that doesn't make sense. It can't be revenge.

Eureka! I think I've got it! They just don't want him to win. Laughing

(But hey, whatever it takes to get our troops out of Iraq is fine with me. I'm not complaining.)

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

michael_e · Joined: Jan 24, 2003 Posts: 85

I think the concept of the time horizon could be a win-win for the US. Instead of us needing to keep all boots on the ground until victory (as yet undefined IMO) is achieved, we can let the Iraqi people take the responsibility squarely on their shoulders and let them define their version victory to the world, which, with their introduction of a time horizon, seems to be their belief that they can maintain stability in their country after an American exit. This would not be a defeat for us, even if, after our exit, conditions once again disintegrate. Our surge will have given the Iraqi government a reduction in overall violence and enough "breathing space" to be able to declare their readiness for a time horizon for eventual US deployment out of their country. We would have an exit with honor, which should satisfy both conservatives and liberals. As I said, a win-win.
This opinion may be overly simplistic, and I look forward to any opinions that may enlighten mine.

Mike --- Independent in Md.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 3871

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

How is Obama's plan to "strategically and carefully, remove troops from secure areas first and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later" Any different than a horizon? As far as I know, Obama has only talked about removing combat troops. We could have supporting troops there for a very long time...... Maybe even 100 years.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 3871

That's true, Ejward. Obama has changed his message since the primary. In the primary, (only a few months ago) is message was that he was going to have all troops out of Iraq in 16 months, period. No matter what happened on the ground, they were coming out. Since then, he's tried to appeal more to the center, saying instead that he might slow things down if needed, but he was still going to get combat troops out in 16 months.

The reality is that Obama painted himself in a corner with his promise to remove all troops in 16 months. He was trying to appeal to the far left, and now he has to try to shift his message to appeal to the center.

I also think this is a direct result of the primary process starting so early this time. Obama started running in December 2006 (see election timeline). Bush didn't even announce the surge until 1.5 months later. Since then, the surge has worked, and rather than leave immediately regardless of consequences, as most people wanted back then, most people now want us to leave responsibly. Unfortunately for Obama, that fits much better into McCain's platform than Obama's.

In reality, no matter who is President, we've already started to withdraw some troops, we have plans to withdraw more, and we have plans to get all combat troops out as soon as we can, as long as we're not abandoning Iraq and giving up everything our troops sacrificed for. I don't think we'll be out in 16 months - too many people have made it clear that it's not possible from a purely logistical standpoint, even if it is possible from a condition-on-ground standpoint.

Now back to the topic starter - this "article" was just another lame attempt from the author and his ilk to attack Bush. It's clear what the motive of the unnamed author is - to make you hate Bush as much as he/she does. It's to try to twist a couple sound bites into a political point. And it's really sad that the "objective" media is so biased. The reality is that we're doing just what we always wanted to do - get our combat troops out as soon as possible, while not abandoning Iraq. And it's also clear that without the oft maligned surge, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So, when is anyone on the left going to admit that Bush was right and they were wrong? Or any of the many people here who attacked Bush for the surge plan?

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

One question then, when John Kerry proposed sending more troops to Iraq during his campaign, why was it such a bad idea? People around here were calling him nuts. I was the lone voice here saying "Yeah!! Send another 100,000 troops in to get things under control". When Bush did the exact same thing, he's hailed as a hero. So, Bush wasn't right, it was John Kerry that was right if anything. If we had done it back in 2004, all troops might have been home by now. So, it kind of ticks me off that Bush takes credit for that idea when he was bashing Kerry for proposing it.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 3871

I didn't remember that, so I went and looked it up. He didn't propose that until 2005, after he lost, so it didn't have anything to do with the 2004 election. But then later in the year, he also proposed reducing troop levels. I won't mention the f-f word (rhymes with hip-hop).

Anyway, sad attempt at humor aside, he was probably right in Feb 2005, but we'll never know now. I do wonder why he brought it up, since prior to that and later he was proposing exactly the opposite. I suspect there were political reasons behind it, since at the same time Democrats were trying to add billions to the war funding bills, likely in an attempt to set themselves up for the 2006 election (by increasing the cost of the recovery).

Now, I'll push this back at you. If Kerry was right in 2005, why was Bush wrong in 2007? I assume you're supporting Obama, and he still to this day says it was the wrong thing to do. Sounds like you disagree with that quite a bit, and to me that's a major disagreement.

ejward · Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Posts: 6521

Who said anything about Bush being wrong in doing it? I think I even posted here that I was in favor of it and that I thought he should have sent MORE troops. Mommanbear jumped all over me for it as I recall.

I'm not sold on Obama. If McCain was the McCain he appead to be in 2000, it would be an easy choice for me. I'll wait to see his VP.

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6185

kenmabmcc

Maliki demands 'specific deadline' for U.S. troop pullout