Arbitrary deadlines great for everything BUT withdrawal from Iraq

[Inland]

Deadlines are recognized as letting people know that support will be cut off, so that they will act to support themselves.

The US gives a deadline to Iraq to have an election. Why a deadline? To make them act.

The US gives a deadline to Iraq to select a Constitution. Why? To make them act.

The US gives welfare mothers a deadline of two years before welfare benefits are cut off, forever. Why? To make them act.

But the Iraqis don't get a deadline to be able to defend themselves without US help. The predictable reaction: they drag their heels, nothing gets done, since they know the US won't leave until they are "ready".

I say, if you give a hard deadline for withdrawing US forces, police and internal security are going to be trained faster than if there is no deadline.

If the goal is to leave, that's what the US would do, today.

[tridim]

1. Do you really think we're going to leave Iraq?

The "goal" is to be there forever so we have a base for future wars in the ME. The deadlines are purely for political gain.

[eleny]

2. Reminds of W's need for "measurable results"

But he reserves that for programs he wants to erase. I'd like to apply it to his Iraq oil grab.

[Kahuna]

3. Actually, I do believe that a dealine is useless. We won't get out

of Iraq until the bush cabal is out of office. They have never leveled with us on their reasons for invading Iraq. Why? Because they are there to plunder the place. They can't very well come clean about that. They also can't leave until they have completely sucked the place dry.

So, no matter how much noise anybody makes they will not give us a time frame for leaving because they have no plans to leave.

[tocqueville]

4. what you need is a CREDIBLE PLAN to get out

then you can set deadlines

the problem is that any credible plan involves a total withdrawal of US forces, and negotiations with Syria and Iran, a replacement of the US forces by a multinational UN-sanctioned "muslim" coalition.

the Dems could work for such a plan

because the alternative is far worse : if (when) the situation will become so bad that the US HAS to cut and run, the rightwingers will put the blame on dems that "didn't stay the course".

I am quite pessimistic because I don't see anybody which enough charisma and momentum who could implement a "honorable" withdrawal.
I won't come from the Bush administration anyway.

And plenty of forces outside the US want the Bush administration to be taught a lesson. So they won't facilitate anything and if they can worsen things without being formally involved, they will...