You never, ever give your enemies a time-table.  Never.

If you are going to pull out, you should do so--but you don't telegraph it in advance, much less fix a date.  That only emboldens your enemies and demoralizes your allies, whom you may still want to help indirectly, even after you've left.

Anti-Vietnam Democrats in the 1970s were right to support a withdrawal but wrong to support deadlines and pass laws handicapping Nixon and Ford.  A president may be a bad president, but he's the only negotiator we've got, and it's a terrible strategic mistake for Congress to undercut his ability to use threats while negotiating a strategic retreat, whether the other side is a totalitarian tyranny like the North Vietnamese dictatorship and its Soviet and Chinese patrons or insurgents as in Iraq.

So much for strategy.  As a political issue, Democratic calls for timetables and moves to curtail Bush's commander-in-chief flexibility will be noted and carefully recorded by conservatives, who will use them as Exhibits A and B in the case for the "stab in the back" argument in the "Who Lost Iraq" debate for the next 30 years.  Liberals should not unwittingly give the Right any material they can use against liberals in the future.

Getting Out of Iraq is not merely a physical exercise.

 It requires a state of mind, psychological preparation of the country, and some real planning for the aftermath of our actions.

The planning for orderly withdrawal should be happening now in the Pentagon and at State (even if it is just speculative).  Nationally, we need to talk about it.

 We need to stop lying to the public that democracy or human rights will be threatened.  They do not exist now in Iraq and they will not exist until that geopgraphical entity assumes some semblance of civilized normality (whatever that is).

We need to admit that Iraq as a national entity no longer exists.

We need to lose the idea that the Saddam clones and Osama wannabes we currently support and who are buzy as bees writing -cough- writing constitutions are worthwhile political allies.

We need to leave incrementally and orderly starting yesterday.  And our leaving needs to be, not a pullout, but a transformation from American misadventure to international responsibility.

And you can declare that you NEVER give timetables to your enemies but we have no enemies in Iraq.  Our enemies are Al Queda. Our soldiers in Iraq are in the middleof a civil war that Bush was briefed on before he jumped in, eyes closed, ass first, and without a parachute, map, or clue about what it all meant.

The day Cindy Sheehan yanks that miserable coward out of his spiderhole in Crawford the American people will understand. 

The pertinent question here is: Is our presence doing more harm than good?

If you believe that the insurgency has nothing to do with us occupying Iraq, then a conditional exit is possible.

If you accept that the insurgency is being fueled because we are there, that they see us as an occupying force on a mission from God against all Muslims, ready to steal their oil and torture anyone of them we capture (which is I'm sure how the insurgency sees us), then we have no choice but to leave.

The former position, to me, reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

Here's one reason that is frequently given in favor of the timetable idea that I don't think is very compelling: It is often argued that announcing a timetable will slow down the rate of foreign jihadists and other foreign fighters coming into Iraq, on the theory that if the Americans are going, there is no longer any need to go fight them.

But it is frequently observed that the most popular time to show up for a fight is when that fight is almost over.  So, I'm not sure announcing a date for the end to the fight will slow down the influx of fighters.  In any case, the jihadists coming to Iraq have an agenda that goes beyond expelling the Americans.  Once the US is gone they will get down to the work of attempting to defeat their other enemies in Iraq.  Finally, and most important, the vast majority of the insurgents seem to be Iraqis themselves, particularly Sunni Arabs and Baathists.

A somewhat more compelling reason for setting a timetable is that it is the only way to make a firm and credible statement that we don't have any designs on a permanent US presence in Iraq.  (Perhaps this is why Bush himself seems so opposed to timetables - since he apparently does have designs on a more-or-less permanent presence in Iraq.)  Making such a statement may help to move some Iraqis to cooperate more closely with US forces in suppressing the insurgency.  As things stand now, such people are subject to the charge that they are collaborating with foreign conquereors in the takeover of the country.

But to me the best reason is this:  We have to make it very clear to ordinary Iraqis that we are actually going, and that they will very soon be faced with the task of securing their country themselves.  In the Middle East, including Iraq, we often here condemnations of US policy coupled with unrealistic, and even paranoid beliefs in US omnipotence.  If a police station is attacked, or a pipeline sabataged, or a store looted, or black market drugs and weapons sold, the complaint is "Why aren't the Americans stopping this?!"   The assumption is that the US can do anything it really wants to, and consequently that anything bad that happens must be part of our diabolical plan. 

In such  a situation, people have very little incentive to act vigorously to provide for their own security and governance.  They may be happy to take a job in the security forces to provide for their families; and they may go through the motions of training.  But as long as the Americans are there with all those people and alll that equipment and weaponry, what reason is there to actually do anyting?  Once ordinary Iraqis are face to face with the fact that we actually are leaving, and they begin to contemplate what might happen there when we leave, they will begin to get off the dime, get organized, and start to plan the future of Iraq without Americans.

And they will start to work energetically, and with a healthy dose of panic, on building the kind of country they actually want, rather than jumping through the hoops required by US-written political formulas.  The political process in Iraq is stalled - bogged down in the moribund US-imposed constitution-writing process which is the bastard offspring of Bremer's provisional governent.  We really need to encourage the growth of more spontaneous, home-grown solutions and activism, driven by the long-term exigencies of a post-US Iraq rather than the short-term expediencies of working withing the framework of the occupation.  People have to begin to taste the reality of an Iraq without Americans to turn the historical page and start writing the next chapter..

Much time has been given to the discussion of whether the US should provide a public timetable for withdrawal.  Opponents claim that giving a timetable will simply aid the enemy, allowing them the luxury of "waiting us out."  Most proponents do not give a superbly logical argument for a timetable, but generally view it as a mutually agreeable course of withdrawal.  I would like to pose an alternate argument for the presentation of a timetable. 

It is assumed that our military in Iraq have a mission of some sort, a stated goal that at some point in the future the assignment will be complete.  This, I believe, can loosely be compared to my graduate studies. 

At the beginning of the semester, my professor will hand out a syllabus.  This syllabus will contain a number of goals for the semester, a few exams that will record my progress, and most likely the assignment of a term paper. 

This assignment will very surely have a due date, or a "timetable", if you will.  The professor does not state that he expects my term paper to be handed in when the job is completed, and not one day later.  To do so he would almost guarantee that he does not receive any term paper for a very long time.  Rather, he states explicitly that it is due on a set day in the future, and it will be subject to grade reductions for every day it is late. 

At this point, I know when my term paper is due, I know what I have to do to complete it successfully, and I know how much time I have to complete it.  This expectation of the professor creates a motivation for me to complete my assignment. 

Setting a timetable for withdrawal, assuming the US has set a goal that will determine victory, will raise expectations and will create the circumstances of motivation for the military to take responsibility for its actions and to successfully complete its mission in Iraq. 

The insurgency has two prongs. The Qaeda prong (for lack of a better term) is there to kill Americans, and it will continue as long as there are Americans to kill. The Sunni prong is there to make a last stand against Shiite hegemony, and it will likely remain active in perpetuity, barring improbable political concessions from the Shiites and Kurds.
Obviously, we can make part of this problem go away by leaving, and the sooner the better. The question is, can we help to resolve the second problem by sticking around? True, that requires a diplomatic answer, not a military one, but sticking around is what gives us diplomatic leverage.
Diplomatically (and morally), the right thing to do right now is to weigh in on the Sunnis' side, and pressure the Shiites and Kurds to give the Sunnis a fair shake in terms of political representation and oil revenues. But I don't see any evidence that the Bush administration is doing that. What I see is pressure to get a constitution--any constitution--so we can declare progress and justify our continued investment of American lives. (Prediction: Bush will meet with Cindy Sheehan the day after there's a draft constitution.)
If we aren't actively trying to resolve legitimate Sunni grievances about the political process, then we should pull out yesterday. Because all we're doing is dying--and killing people.

chris:

Applying the completion of a term paper (a rather straight forward proposition) to the complexities of a mission that is a mix of law enforcement, military action and diplomacy is rather dubious at best. Also, to suggest that somehow without a timetable the military simply won't get down to the business of 'winning' is really, really illogical. That implies laziness, procrastination or some other action that is simply not quantifiable.

If I had family member in Iraq and he/she died during the time between the announcing of leaving and leaving, I would truly wonder why they had to die.

There may be reasonable rationale for setting a timetable (I haven't heard of one yet that safisfies me) but the rationale you suggest isn't even close.

I think that about covers it all, doesn't it?

Not for me it doesn't. It's a terrible false analogy.

I found lots of good arguments against Michael Lind's well-put point later in this thread, ones that really made me think.

But yours is just propaganda that seems to presume that the whole idea of how a military should fight a war.

"Loose lips sink ships" was not a slogan that telegraphed that you couldn't criticize FDR or even the ETO strategy that one read about in the newspaper.

The reason I even commented on it was that I think that kind of attitude is one that is really hurting the Dems.

It strikes me that the best course of action is to develop a set of clear goals with a flexible time table attached.  The goals with time table will put pressure on Iraqi leaders to make hard decisions and get things rolling before they lose American troop support.  It will help Americans see that there are concrete goals - not just fantasy talk about democracy dominoes and freedom marching - and perhaps shore up support.  Thirdly, it forces our administration to clearly lay out any goals that may be under raps (oil, permanant bases, more privatization).

I understand the concern that insurgents may figure they can just wait out the time table, but if it's based on specific accompishments then they'll have trouble just coasting.

I understand the concern that mere presence of American troops makes the situation worse.  That's why clear goals and a hopeful-to-leave-by date may convince average Iraqis that the Americans are not here to stay.

"The Qaeda prong (for lack of a better term) is there to kill Americans, and it will continue as long as there are Americans to kill."

Are you sure if this?  It seems many of the suicide bombings (which I assume to be a signature of al Qaeda) are aimed at Iraqi civilians these days.  Is al Qaeda merely opposed to the U.S. or are they opposed to any representative government that may evolve?

Getting out hinges upon agreeing why we are there to begin with. Bush is still insisting upon the security of the U.S. as a principle factor. That has been thoroughly discredited. Iraq was not a threat. So we have no credibility at all in anything we say. Bush has to realize that his false claims of why we are there is why we are facing such a difficult time of it. Iraqi patriots know, just as many Americans know, Bush messed up. And knowing that, they'll continue to fight forever until we leave. They view this as having been unjustifiably attacked by a foreign power. As patriots they have little choice except to keep fighting. We would do no different until we were all dead or the enemy left.
 
We should just pack up and leave. We'll never fix this and just end up killing a lot more people.


thepeoplechoose

thepeoplechoose:

I agree. What is the old proverb: The wise man knows when to stop digging his own grave.

We've dug ours. We have lost an incredible amount of credibility around the world. We have killed thousands of civilians. We have lost or injured thousands of our own military personnel. We have spent billions of dollars for the priveledge of causing all of this death and destruction.

The grave looks pretty deep. The question becomes, when will we stop digging.

You never, ever give your enemies a time-table.  Never.

This is so obvious it shouldn't have to be mentioned, which is probably why it had to be as well.

I suppose you saw The Devils Advocate -...never let 'em see you coming...

As a political issue, Democratic calls for timetables and moves to curtail Bush's commander-in-chief flexibility will be noted and carefully recorded by conservatives, who will use them as Exhibits A and B in the case for the "stab in the back" argument in the "Who Lost Iraq" debate for the next 30 years.  Liberals should not unwittingly give the Right any material they can use against liberals in the future.

Agreed, if the demands themselves are inflexible and not set by realistic estimates of the blowback from those very demands, the shoe is on the other foot rather quickly. If Bush just yanked them out next month he could very well blame the insuing chaos in Iraq on the liberals and the echo machine would quickly translate that into Democrats. And that is a purely political calculation and assesment, and unfortunately a necessary one.

One of the saddest aspects of this situation is that the Iraqi people are suffering for the sins of the American peoples' rush to war. In all these discussions I have yet to see any concern for their thinking or feelings about all of this. If the war is indeed lost, as I believe it was from the get go, American hubris remains intact.

One other thing that has apparently escaped our notice is that Republican policies have put all Americans over the barrel, not just Bushco, and whether anyone likes it or not, you are over the barrel with Bushco. We have, to cop a phrase, "grasped the wolf by the jowls..", as a nation, not a political party.

Extricating ourselves from Iraq I fear is going to be as difficult and painful as removing bandages daily for wound debreeding. I think we as liberals and patriots need to examine this issue from a new perspective, one inwhich we try to discern how these event occured and how we prevent them from occuring again within a Constitutional framework. The process is already well along, and that is what the political energy should be directed towards if it is to have lasting effect.

In the end my friends, no matter how America was seduced into Iraq, you are quite pregnant with it, and your choices are to abort or carry to term, but you shall not regain your virtue with a paternity suit against its' neocon father. We may have no choice but to redeem ourselves with the child. In either case, we are going to carry this load for a long time,  and no time table for withdrawal is going to change that either.

"Iraqi patriots know, just as many Americans know, Bush messed up. And knowing that, they'll continue to fight forever until we leave."

Life would be simple if the insurgency were made up of united "patriots" attempting to drive the "occupiers" from their homeland.  Unfortunately, life is not that simple except perhaps in the movies.

Not knowing any of the public figures who call for timetables, and believing as I do that a series of benchmarks or conditions is just obviously a better way to go, I've always assumed that e.g. Congressional representatives are calling for a timetable for this reason:

Bush will not want to leave before "the job is done". He doesn't seem to have any clue what that means, but it's pretty clear that it isn't "done" now, and probably won't be in the near future. Thus, if he is going to withdraw our forces from Iraq, it will be under some sort of real pressure, and he will be very, very reluctant.

If that pressure leads him to agree to some sort of conditional withdrawal, then he can always claim that the conditions are not being met. The only way to get Bush, in particular, to actually pull the troops out is to use a timetable, however imperfect an instrument it might be, since otherwise nothing he might ever agree to do will actually result in troops leaving. (Unless the army breaks. She said, laughing a hollow little laugh.)

BKL makes a good point about time tables.

It is also worth noting that the greatest casualties in Vietnam were during Nixon's withdrawal from that country.

 That being said it would be really foolish to withdraw before we have truly stabilized the region and quashed resistance.  If democrats united and said that the job wasn't done, it could very well be a PR victory if Bush pulls out and the government there collapses shortly after.