Kerry's New Iraq Policy - Cut and Run

[Sam Stone]

Well, it's a new day of the week, so it was about time for Kerry to shift his position on Iraq again:

[url=http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=578182&section=news]Kerry vows to withdraw troops from Iraq[/quote]


CANONSBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and says his goal is to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term.


This is idiotic. It's also a change from what he was saying just a few weeks ago, when he said the problem with Iraq was that Bush wasn't sending enough troops there, and he was pledging another 40,000 troops. Now he wants to pull them all out.

I know there are a lot of Kerry supporters here who have said that even though the war was wrong, it would be disastrous to cut and run. Do you now agree with Kerry's new position, or do you agree with the 'old' Kerry, from say a couple of weeks ago?

And even if you think the troops should come home, don't you think it's stupid to announce a timetable before hostilities have ended? Doesn't that just give the enemy more strategic options? ("The Americans want to go home, Aziz. Let's calm down, let them think everything is okay, and then after they leave we will take over.")

Finally, from a tactical election standpoint, is this not just idiotic? Kerry's biggest problem is that he has been pigeonholed as a waffler who can't stand the heat. How does changing his position again help his campaign?

[Atticus Finch]

How is this a change? He's not talking about leaving Iraq next week, he's pledged to leave Iraq within his first term, if elected. That's four and a half years leeway. Hardly "cutting and running". Don't be deliberately obtuse.

[Squink]

think it's stupid to announce a timetable before hostilities have ended?The weather in Iraq will be cooling down in the next month or so, and I expect the Iraqi civil war will be heating up. I don't recall anyone saying that we conquered Iraq in order to serve as a pawn to one faction in that type of conflict, yet that seems to be what we're doing nowadays. Why are we attacking the Turkmen in Tal Afar for instance, if not for some political reason thus far known only to Allawi and a few military and administration officials? Over the past couple months, the strategic benefits US actions have become steadily less clear, and the areas of the country controlled by either the US or Iraq's sovereign government have gotten steadily smaller. There is no end in sight, and the shit we are in continues to get deeper. Under those circumstances, it'd be foolhardy to wait until everything is hunkydory before rethinking our goals and our deployment.

Here's an excellent review of the situation in Iraq that SimonX found recently: IRAQ IN TRANSITION: VORTEX OR CATALYST? (http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/mep/BP0904.pdf?PHPSESSID=92ff63f04b89e1819a45becec8a7a968) (~300K pdf)

It doesn't look as if things are going to get better anytime soon, and it doesn't look like anything we could do incountry will help matters.
So why should we force the men and women in the armed forces to stay in Iraq and risk death?

[Brutus]

Hahahah! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/)

[Patty O'Furniture]

I just watched Mary Matalin (former Bush campaign strategist) on Meet the Press, saying that this represents Kerry's 8th major policy change on Iraq. I guess what we need is a steering wheel lock on the "Iraq policy" so that no directional changes are ever made, regardless of new developments in the war or in public opinion.

[jayjay]

Hahahah! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/)

Darn liberal media!

[Patty O'Furniture]

Hahahah! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/)

As I was saying, I suspect that public opinion has changed somewhat since last December, as more and more of our boys come home in body bags. It will probably change again as the mortality rate hits the 1000 mark within the next few weeks. Is it wrong for a politician to alter his policies to reflect the desires of the electorate?

[Blalron]

I honestly don't give a damn. I'd vote for a ham sandwich if it got Bush out of office. Besides, the cut and run thing was what I wanted to begin with.

[Sam Stone]

<highfives Brutus>

[jayjay]

<highfives Brutus>

Where IS that puking smiley? The carpetbagger congratulating the neanderthal for imitating Nelson Muntz...have we fallen this far?

[jayjay]

Where IS that puking smiley? The carpetbagger congratulating the neanderthal for imitating Nelson Muntz...have we fallen this far?

And I just realized this is Great Debates and apologize for the characterizations above*... :smack:




*even if they are accurate...

[The Flying Dutchman]

Hahahah! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/)

Slam dunk !!!!

[PatriotX]

Well, despite what the criteria, qualifications and specifications of 'cut&run' may or may not be...
Maybe Kerry plans, just like the Bush plan didn't survive contact with reality.

Hahahah!

[Brutus]

<highfives Sam Stone>

Man, it took me a few minutes to stop laughing so I could actually read the article. A nice little gem in it:


The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”


How the times are changing, eh Mssr.Kerry? Hey, with the recent staff change in the Kerry camp, he didn't accidently hire Karl Rove, did he? ;)

[LilShieste]

Did I miss something? Why exactly is Brutus laughing, and Sam high-fiving him?

As for the accusation of Kerry wanting to "cut and run": get real.

A lot can happen during 4 years, and we are more than capable of withdrawing our troops (or at the very least, cycling them), regardless of what Our Fearless Leader would have you believe.

A lot is possible when your allies aren't pissed at you.

LilShieste

[Brutus]

And I just realized this is Great Debates and apologize for the characterizations above*... :smack:




*even if they are accurate...

Ya, sure. :rolleyes:

[Soapbox Monkey]

*sigh*

I don't know what to think.

I'm starting to seriously consider even sending in my voter registration forms. What's the point in voting if I don't want to see either candidate win?

[Atticus Finch]

I repeat - Kerry has never called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, or even their withdrawal within 18 months or so. He didn't propose it in the past, he's not proposing it now.

The change in policy? Well, back in December he said he wouldn't withdraw troops straight away, that there might need to be new troops sent through. Now he says he'd withdraw the troops within four-and-a-half years. There's no cognitive dissonance between those two positions.

Repeat - back then he wasn't in favour of leaving immediately. Now he's in favour of leaving over a long time frame. Where is the difference?

[Soapbox Monkey]

*reconsider, that is.

[LilShieste]

Man, it took me a few minutes to stop laughing so I could actually read the article. A nice little gem in it:



The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”

Umm, yeah... if we withdraw our troops immediately (i.e. cut and run), then it would be an invitation for failure. But since Kerry said he had a goal to withdraw troops within the next 4 years... Let me re-iterate: "WITHIN THE NEXT 4 YEARS"...4 years is hardly "cut and run".

Give it a rest. Our current president is not capable of envisioning the withdrawal of our troops (in any reasonable manner), but his opponent is. And you're laughing? This is ridiculous.

LilShieste

[PatriotX]

I'm glad that Kerry is (verbally at least) backing away from the permanent US military bases in the region. The Endruing Camps seem like a worse and worse idea daily.

[RedFury]

Well, it's a new day of the week, so it was about time for Kerry to shift his position on Iraq again:

Kerry vows to withdraw troops from Iraq (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=578182&section=news) (fixed link)

This is idiotic. It's also a change from what he was saying just a few weeks ago, when he said the problem with Iraq was that Bush wasn't sending enough troops there, and he was pledging another 40,000 troops. Now he wants to pull them all out.

Actually, what's "idiotic" is your parsing of Kerry's statement. For nowhere in the link provided does Kerry say or even imply that the additional 40,000 troops won't be sent. Perfectly reasonable to assume that with a four year window to work with, he could increase the troops short-term while he works to get other nations on board and then start the withdrawal.


I know there are a lot of Kerry supporters here who have said that even though the war was wrong, it would be disastrous to cut and run. Do you now agree with Kerry's new position, or do you agree with the 'old' Kerry, from say a couple of weeks ago?

"Cut and Run"? What in the world are you talking about? How's a four year minimum target date even in the same league as a "cut and run"?

And even if you think the troops should come home, don't you think it's stupid to announce a timetable before hostilities have ended? Doesn't that just give the enemy more strategic options? ("The Americans want to go home, Aziz. Let's calm down, let them think everything is okay, and then after they leave we will take over.")

It's probably news to you since Iraq has mysteriously disappeared from front-page news as of late, but US forces, under The Great Misleader, have already begun to withdraw:

One By One, Iraqi Cities Become No-Go Zones (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/weekinreview/05filk.html?hp) -- NYT, free registration required.

In Iraq, the list of places from which American soldiers have either withdrawn or decided to visit only rarely is growing: Falluja, where a Taliban-like regime has imposed a rigid theocracy; Ramadi, where the Sunni insurgents appear to have the run of the city; and the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf to the south, where the Americans agreed last month to keep their distance from the sacred shrines of Ali and Hussein.

The calls are rising for the Americans to pull out of even more areas, notably Sadr City, the sprawling neighborhood in eastern Baghdad that is the main base for the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr. There, leaders of his Mahdi Army are demanding that American soldiers, except those sent in to do reconstruction work, get out.

Negotiations with rebel leaders foundered last week on precisely the issue of the freedom of American soldiers to enter the area; the Iraqi government, possibly with American backing, refused to accept the militia's demand. Even so, the point seemed clear enough: where Iraqis once tolerated American soldiers as a source of stability in their neighborhoods, they increasingly see them as a cause of the violence. Take out the Americans, the Iraqis say, and you take out the problem. Leave us alone, and we will sort our own problems.

"All we want is for the Americans to stay out," said Yusef al-Nasiri, a top aide to Mr. Sadr. "When the Americans come into the city, they insult our people. That's when the people get nervous. It makes them uncomfortable."

That certain Iraqis believe their cities and neighborhoods would be better off without American soldiers is neither new nor surprising; that is what the guerrillas' insurgency, now in its 17th month, is all about. What is new, however, is that the Americans, in certain cases, appear to agree or have decided that the cost to prove otherwise would be too high. (bolding mine)

Seems to me, a pull-out by any other name, is still a pull-out. You know, in Bushspeak, this is just like 'Mission Accomplished."

Finally, from a tactical election standpoint, is this not just idiotic? Kerry's biggest problem is that he has been pigeonholed as a waffler who can't stand the heat. How does changing his position again help his campaign?

Well, reading what Kerry says in your own link doesn't lend the support you think it does to your charge:

Kerry, like Bush, promised that the United States would stay the course until Iraq was secure, saying: "We have to do what we need to do to get out and do it right."

IOW, Republican Spin Points aside, he's basically saying what he's said all along. Namely, securing Iraq, internationalize the peace-keeping operations by gathering the international support this Administration has squandered, and get the hell out of Dodge.

[Blalron]

In four years, Iraq should have an established democratic government and a trained police and military force. I'm fully confident that they will be able to handle security threats on their own. Why are you Republicans so eager to pour billions of dollars in welfare to Iraq for an indefinite number of years? I thought you guys hated welfare?

[Brutus]

In four years, Iraq should have an established democratic government and a trained police and military force. I'm fully confident that they will be able to handle security threats on their own.

As we go into our 9th year in Bosnia? This stuff takes time you know, especially when dealing with so many ethnic groups and concerns.


Why are you Republicans so eager to pour billions of dollars in welfare to Iraq for an indefinite number of years? I thought you guys hated welfare?

Only for poor disenfranchised voters inner-city minority immigrant elderly voters. For everyone else, it's OK.

[elucidator]

I broached this subject once before - the cold equations say that there is a cut-and-run point, the point where America would simply say "To hell with this, being between Iraq and hard place,we've sunk a gazillion bucks into this pain pit and we're outa here". I'm not suggesting I know what point of time that is, but it has to exist somewhere out there. I heard tell John McCain said this weekend he expected 10-20 years (Cite Boy! Go fetch that cite, This Week with George S.)

I gotta wonder about that, that is one hell of a long time! And when I heard, I kinda did a mental countdown: how long before the WH clarifies that. You would think a prediction like that, from a heavy Republican, would draw a reaction. Not much.

So, I think its a smoke out. Kerry is saying he would try to get the troops out within 4.5 years but who wouldn't, thats like promising to be good. So that don't count for much.

But it poses the question, in a backhanded sort of way. What is the WH estimate? How long do the Bushiviks, who presumably are in charge of this desert donnybrook, think we're going to be there? Anybody here have a fixed number, however approximate? All I ever hear is "staying the course", "as long as necessary on not one day more", etc. Which is rather indefinite.

So I think that's one line of thought the Bushiviks would prefer we avoid. They don't talk about how long we're going to be there because, mostly, they don't know. My guess is as good as theirs. But one thing they know for sure: any remotely reliable and truthful estimate is gonna be a number we don't want to hear.

Its an issue they would very much like to avoid discussing in public for the immediate future, say, about 56 days. Roughly.

Kerry's trying to manuever them into a position where they have to say something, and they can't say anything good.

[Marley23]

How is saying "I'd like to bring the troops home within four years if it's possible" cutting and running? Speaking of which, what exactly IS the Bush plan for leaving Iraq? I assume there must be one...

[John Mace]

I think you're wrong, here, Sam.

Leaving aside for the moment the possibility of more claims about "flip-flopping", this is very smart of Kerry. Bush is weak on Iraq, and support for the war has been generally trending down for some time now. Why not hit Bush where it hurts? And I have to agree with the other posters that getting out by 2008 is hardly a "cut and run" strategy.

I liked it a lot when Bush set a date for transfer of civil authority to Iraq as June of this year. That's what leaders do-- set the hard goals and tell their people to execute. Getting all or most of our troops out of there in 4 years is a perfectly reasonable goal. It makes a hell of a lot of sense to head in that direction and make sure we are doing the things necessary to achieve it. If we wait for the "right moment" to exit, that moment will never come.

Now, dealing with the flip-flop issue... Yes, this leaves Kerry open to some more sniping from the Pubs, but it's unclear to me that there would be any less sniping if Kerry didn't take this stand. The Pubs have the flip-flop line as a major part of their campaign effort, and that won't change no matter what Kerry does.

[Polerius]

<highfives Brutus>
I'm curious: do you two actually believe that leaving in 4 years is "cut and run" or are you just pretending that you do in hopes of convicing some feeble-minded lurkers on this board?

[Sam Stone]

He doesn't say 'four years'. He says "within my first term". You're giving it the most generous spin.

But stating even that it will be in his first term is an announcement of the intention to leave Iraq. Even if that's what you want to do, it's a stupid thing to say. Bush has it exactly right when he says, "We will not stay one day longer than we have to, or one day less than is necessary." Putting any kind of a timetable on your plan to leave just emboldens the enemy. If FDR had said, "We will leave Europe no later than 1946", it would have told the Germans that they could run the clock out. And that's exactly what announcing a withdrawal timeframe does for the insurgency in Iraq.

In wartime, it is important to display steely resolve, to let the enemy believe that they simply can't win.

And like it or not, this does represent a shift in policy for Kerry, because for a long time he was saying the same thing as Bush when he was prodded about how long the U.S. should stay. "As long as we have to". Which is the correct answer. Now he's put his finger to the wind and decided a policy shift will help him in the polls.

[John Mace]

And like it or not, this does represent a shift in policy for Kerry, because for a long time he was saying the same thing as Bush when he was prodded about how long the U.S. should stay. "As long as we have to". Which is the correct answer. Now he's put his finger to the wind and decided a policy shift will help him in the polls.

It might be that Kerry really doesn't know exactly what he'll do if he's elected. It might be that he won't make up his mind for quite some time into his presidency. I'm actually OK with that. He may actually not have been fully apprised of the situation by those running things at the moment.

But.... it's a very good thing for him to say, politically. Kucinich and Nader are nuts with their truly "cut and run" strategy. It's a non-starter. But saying, in effect that he will bring our men and women home during his first term in office can only help him in the election.

[elucidator]

...In wartime, it is important to display steely resolve...

I've heard that said a lot. Especially from men who credit themselves with possessing that quality. Number one, most important thing, steely resolve.

But you glance over history, and you gotta wonder, maybe that principle is tinged with romanticism, maybe it ain't what its cracked up to be, know what I mean?

Take the Alamo. Those guys had your basic steely resolve, no two ways about it. And they were up against Santa Ana, one of historys truly magnificent failures, the very model of Gen Jubilation T. Cornpone, leader of Cornpone's Defeat, Cornpone's Rout, and Cornpones Utter Humiliation. Vastly outnumbered, they were still crushed by this doofus, steely resolve and all. And Santa Ana still managed to screw the perro, and lose Texas. Which he most likely would have done anyway. Whether they got their peckerwood asses shot off or not!

So maybe its best to say, show steely resolve up to the point where it becomes clear you've really fucked up big. Then you show adaptability and flexible strategic thinking. Thinking outside the bog. The path to catastrophic success is not always so cut and dried, Sam. May even be cut and run.

So it may be ok to appear unshakeably resolute and determined to proceed at any cost. Just as long as you know you're bluffing.

[Polerius]

But stating even that it will be in his first term is an announcement of the intention to leave Iraq. Even if that's what you want to do, it's a stupid thing to say. Bush has it exactly right when he says, "We will not stay one day longer than we have to, or one day less than is necessary." Putting any kind of a timetable on your plan to leave just emboldens the enemy.
Sam, did you actually read the article you linked in the OP?
Kerry, like Bush, promised that the United States would stay the course until Iraq was secure, saying: "We have to do what we need to do to get out and do it right."

...

He also said Washington should make it clear to the world that the United States had no "long-term designs to maintain bases and troops in Iraq."

"We want those troops home and my goal would be to try to get them home in my first term and I believe that can be done," he said.

So, he is saying that he will be staying for as long as necessary, just like Bush. But, he will try to get the troops back within four years. Nowhere does he say that this is a strict timetable.

Honestly, did you read that far into the article? Did you not understand what it was saying? Was the OP dishonest, or just an honest mistake?

[Brutus]

So, he is saying that he will be staying for as long as necessary, just like Bush.

Heh, and that's better for you guys?

Kerry is trying to play to all sides. It's not going to work, but it does (and will continue to) make for these amusing little 'We must not cut and run!/We should tell Al Sadr to cool it for 4 years, we'll didi mau by then' moments.

[Mr. Moto]

My question is, why on earth would he announce this in Canonsburg, PA?

I grew up about 20 minutes from here. Washington County is chock full of union Democrats, elderly voters, and veterans. None of them would be favorably disposed toward a message of American weakness and vacillation.

Who is running things over there, anyway? With so many new hires I hardly know who to blame for the idiotic timing of this idiotic announcement.

[Polerius]

Heh, and that's better for you guys?
What's better for "us" guys? That Kerry thinks the U.S. should stay as long as necessary?

Anyone with a brain knows that, no matter how the U.S. got into Iraq, it should not just pack up and leave things in the state they are in right now. It would be disastrous for just about everyone (except maybe for Bin Laden and his cronies)

Just because Bush wants to stay as long as necessary doesn't mean that Kerry has to have a different opinion from that.

[Spavined Gelding]

We are returned from vacation. As the more astute and attentive may have noticed I have not been adding my partisan blather to this floating pissing match for the past two weeks or so. I am delighted to see that things continue as before – lots of smoke and heat but precious little illumination (see also the current thread in the Pit about our Presidents fractured syntax on OBY-GYNs). Having gained ten pounds (five kilos) while eating my way through Alsace -Lorraine I bring the necessary gravatas to this knife fight posing as a discussion of the issues of the day.

“Cut and Run” is of course a loaded phrase based on a naval technique of cutting the anchor rope in order to make a fast and hurried departure. I can only suppose out friend Sam Stone, ever the even handed and fair minded participant in these discussions, chose the phrase deliberately in order to extract the greatest partisan implication from Senator Kerry’s otherwise fairly innocuous statement. I would have said that the President seeks to Bug Out of Korea but that is just me. “Bug out” has a special meaning for old soldiers.

In fairness, a damned scarce commodity around here and in political discussion generally, it is also the President’s policy to sooner or later leave Iraq. That is the whole reason for the temporary occupation government that Mr. Bremer was running and the interim government of limited sovereignly – it prepares for a termination of the occupation and the establishment of an Iraq run by Iraqis. The goal of both the President and the Senator is the same. To denigrate one while exalting the other is just dishonest. The real question is which one of the candidates is more likely to actually pull it off. The accompanying question is whether the officials who got the country into this quagmire (a word chosen deliberately for its implications) should be entrusted with the job of extracting the nation from what looks to me like an ill-considered and ill advised foreign adventure with precious little connection to the security of the nation.

All rational people are agreed that the US cannot precipitously abandon Iraq now that we have created our own special brand of chaos there. The issue is how we best do that with minimal injury to the nations already battered credibility and without surrendering Iraq to a civil war that will turn all the apparent real policy objectives in going there in the first place into a cocked hat.

[Shodan]

All rational people are agreed that the US cannot precipitously abandon Iraq now that we have created our own special brand of chaos there. Which is precisely why Kerry's latest flip-flop (and that is exactly what it is, as Brutus' article demonstrates) is so worthy of contempt.

Methinks the Empty Suit is hoping to pull off a Nixonian "I have a secret plan to end the war (http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html)" strategy. And the Democrats are proposing a candidate who bases his foreign policy on flash backs he is having from 1968.

Regards,
Shodan

[MEBuckner]

Where IS that puking smiley? The carpetbagger congratulating the neanderthal for imitating Nelson Muntz...have we fallen this far?
And I just realized this is Great Debates and apologize for the characterizations above*... :smack:
Moderator's Note: Jayjay, you almost had me with the apology. "Oh, he just slipped up and forgot which forum he was in...probably had too many windows open."
*even if they are accurate...
However, the fine print kind of renders the "apology" pretty meaningless.

Keep the personal insults and the flames out of this forum and in the Pit where they belong. Don't apologize for it, definitely don't "apologize" for it, just don't do it.

[Hambil]

Which is precisely why Kerry's latest flip-flop (and that is exactly what it is, as Brutus' article demonstrates) is so worthy of contempt.

Methinks the Empty Suit is hoping to pull off a Nixonian "I have a secret plan to end the war (http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html)" strategy. And the Democrats are proposing a candidate who bases his foreign policy on flash backs he is having from 1968.

Regards,
Shodan
Come on people. Let's not make this a forum of rational thought vs. instapundit.com, or visa-versa for liberals. There are a million boards for 'discussing' politics that way. This is Straight Dope.

[ElvisL1ves]

The mission was accomplished a year and a half ago, said the banner. Iraq is now free and self-governing, says the Bush Believers' Brigade. One might well ask the loyalists why the US troops are still there and still getting killed now. Oh, hell, why don't we?

He doesn't say 'four years'. He says "within my first term". You're giving it the most generous spin.Perhaps this is an example of "two countries separated by a common language", but you might well explain where you get the idea that Presidential terms are something other than four years long. For anyone using "the most generous spin", "within Kerry's first term" would mean four years plus four months from now.

[Avumede]

Are all of you daft? Kerry has said repeatedly for as long as I can remember, that we wants to significantly reduce U.S. troops there. It's not cutting and running, since he wants to replace them with more international troops.

So, most of these points would only be valid if he had recently said he will withdraw no matter what. Did he say so?

[Loopydude]

I actually welcome this debate. At least Kerry is saying something specific enough that one could agree or disagree with it. So, some say bringing troops home within his first term is too rapid a withdrawl. Some say that's just about right. Great, if Kerry sticks to that plan, we have a point of debate. All we've had up to now is "I would have done it differently, and I will do it differently." Differently how? Now we have some idea.

[aahala]

Sooner or later US troops will leave Iraq.

If you mean by the phrase "cut and run" a result that the country will quickly return to pretty much its condition before US troops were involved, then it doesn't matter who is President or what our policy is.

You can train a dog but you can't change its nature. Iraq will be Iraq.

[Bruce_Daddy]

I'm all out of syrup and butter over here, can someone pass me some more?

Thanks.

[PatriotX]

What is the WH estimate?
...what exactly IS the Bush plan for leaving Iraq?

I dunno.

They are building them 14 permanent bases and the world's largest SU embassy, though.

Are these more differences from Viet Nam?

[ElvisL1ves]

They are building them 14 permanent bases and the world's largest SU embassy, though.

Are these more differences from Viet Nam?

Does the embassy have a helipad on the roof?

[PatriotX]

Sometime within the next four years = cut&run

How does this work in situations other than this one?

Let's try it on for size:

I've got three years left in my undergrad studies.
becomes
I'm cutting&running from college.

I have less than four years left in my enlistment.
becomes
I'm cutting&running from college.

I want to give you a raise, but because of budgetary pressures, the raise'll have to wait a while- sometime within the next four years.
becomes
I'm going to c&r from our budgetary restraints and give you a raise.




In these examples (and many, many others I'd wager) cut&run implies an immediacy that's not a part of 'within the next four years'.
Based on this difference, I'd say that rarely, if ever, is c&r an acceptable equivalent of 'within the next four years.'
YMMV.

[Uncommon Sense]

So maybe its best to say, show steely resolve up to the point where it becomes clear you've really fucked up big. Then you show adaptability and flexible strategic thinking. Thinking outside the bog. The path to catastrophic success is not always so cut and dried, Sam. May even be cut and run.

So it may be ok to appear unshakeably resolute and determined to proceed at any cost. Just as long as you know you're bluffing.

Me thinks you make sense. I'd rather the two guys agree that Iraq will happen and worry about making the proper adjustments on the fly with the goal of getting out as soon as possible. We must give, at least, the appearance that we are of hardened resolve.

How much of the information that the Pres has access to is JK privy to regarding the goings on in Iraq?

[blowero]

Did I miss something? Why exactly is Brutus laughing, and Sam high-fiving him?

Because, if you're still behind Bush, you have to play fast & loose with the facts. There's just no way you can possibly say anything good about the guy. The only thing left is making up strawman positions for Kerry and then knocking them down.

"My goal is to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term" = "cut and run"? You've outdone yourself, Sam. And is anyone else getting the mind-blowing irony of these guys claiming Kerry's timetable is too short, while at the same time supporting George "Mission Accomplished" W. Bush? :D

[Avenger]

If Kerry's plan is so unrealistic, can we expect to see George Bush setting out the reasons why four years and a half years is not enough time to expect the situation to be stable enough for the troops to leave?

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3055357.stm) are the views of General Tommy Franks who appears to think that such an aim is attainable.

General Franks told the US Congress that he believed troops would remain in Iraq for some years."Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know," he said in testimony ahead of his retirement from the military.

And this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3269817.stm) (Donald Rusmfeld.....name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic.

The United States says its troops will stay in Iraq until democracy is established there - and beyond the transfer of political power to Iraqis. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this could take at least two years.

Question for Sam Stone , Brutus , etc. Do you not think that once Iraq has a sovereign government and a stable security apparatus, that the US troops should leave. Or do you agree with that, but just don't think that it will happen in the next four and a half years?

[PatriotX]

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3055357.stm) are the views of General Tommy Franks who appears to think that such an aim is attainable.

Technically, all he says in that snippet is that he doesn't know. I couldn't find an actual transcript of the event to find out what question he was answering so that I could put the quote in cotext. Maybe someone else with some more time to spar can be luckier than me at finding the transcript.

More to the point, note that earlier he's also reported to've said:
April 13, 2003 (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:jXNFXV6aBToJ:www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/33355.htm+%22April+13,+2003%22+%22Gen.+Tommy+Franks,%22+%22occupation+of+Iraq+might+last+at+least+a+ year%22&hl=en
): Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that the occupation of Iraq might last at least a year. He told television reporters that many villages and towns had been bypassed, and that it might take a year to search up to 3,000 sites for weapons of mass destruction.


And this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3269817.stm) (Donald Rusmfeld.....name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic.
Again, this is not exactly what Mr. Rumsfeld's said to've said in this snippet. Mr Rumsfeld is very, very well known for speaking in a notably precise manner. He chooses his words very carefully. If he did, in fact, use the phrase "at least two years," that means two years is prob'ly the far outside lowball estimate.
Mr. Rumsfeld does not put an upper limit on the on the estimated end of slogging time in Iraq.
W/o a top end estimation as well, or a best guess, or some equivalence, you've not presented enough info for me to ascertain if 'within four years' is something Mr. Rumsfeld says is a "perfectly realistic" estimate.

[blowero]

I disagree with your interpretation of the quotes, SimonX. If one had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL how long something will take, then one would not offer up ANY numbers. You seem to be saying that, even though these people used actual numbers such as 2 or 4 years, that those numbers should be completely disregarded. But if they didn't think it even feasible that it might be accomplished in one term, then they never would have used those numbers at all.

While it's true that Donald Rumsfeld, in that quote, doesn't literally say, "I, Donald Rumsfeld, hereby proclaim that John Kerry's goal of removing troops from Iraq in one term is realistic", I don't believe that was the point Avenger was trying to make.

[PatriotX]

If one had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL how long something will take, then one would not offer up ANY numbers. Consider that I did not address whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take.

You seem to be saying that, even though these people used actual numbers such as 2 or 4 years, that those numbers should be completely disregarded. More to the point, I'm trying to say that context would show how to interpret the signifigance of the numbers. It's possible that the numbers were not of Mr. Franks' devising. A lot depends on what question he was answering.

But if they didn't think it even feasible that it might be accomplished in one term, then they never would have used those numbers at all. That's certainly a possibility. There're some others that haven't been ruled out yet though.


While it's true that Donald Rumsfeld, in that quote, doesn't literally say, "I, Donald Rumsfeld, hereby proclaim that John Kerry's goal of removing troops from Iraq in one term is realistic", I don't believe that was the point Avenger was trying to make. I do. At the heart of the issue is an assumption I've made. I assumed that by "timescale" Avenger meant the same timeframe that's referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry's presidential term, about four years.
Once thsi assumption's made, then this:
Originally Posted by Avenger
And this guy (Donald Rusmfeld.....name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic.
Becomes an equivalent of
"Rumsfeld seems to also feel that the same timeframe that's referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry's presidential term, about four years- is perfectly realistic."

Perhaps I've misunderstood the nature of your objection.

[blowero]

Consider that I did not address whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take.

Nonsense. Of course you did. That's precisely what is at issue.

More to the point, I'm trying to say that context would show how to interpret the signifigance of the numbers. It's possible that the numbers were not of Mr. Franks' devising. A lot depends on what question he was answering.

Unless the question was, "What's a completely ridiculous incorrect guess as to how long the Iraq war might take?", I don't see how you can argue that the quote doesn't support the contention that Kerry's goal is at least within the realm of reason.

That's certainly a possibility. There're some others that haven't been ruled out yet though.

You're grasping at straws. Yes, I suppose aliens could have used a mind-control ray to make him say "at least a year", when he really meant, "much, much longer than 4 years". Is that what you mean by "other possibility"?

I do. At the heart of the issue is an assumption I've made. I assumed that by "timescale" Avenger meant the same timeframe that's referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry's presidential term, about four years.
Once thsi assumption's made, then this:
Originally Posted by Avenger
And this guy (Donald Rusmfeld.....name rings a bell) seems to also feel that the timescale is perfectly realistic.
Becomes an equivalent of
"Rumsfeld seems to also feel that the same timeframe that's referenced by Kerry and throughout the thread- before the end of Kerry's presidential term, about four years- is perfectly realistic."

Perhaps I've misunderstood the nature of your objection.
Obviously you have. Whether he specifically used the words "I agree with Kerry" (which he obviously wouldn't do), is not the point. The point is that he was throwing around numbers similar (less, in fact) to what Kerry is stating as his goal. If one considers 4 years to be absolutely, unequivocably out of the question, one would not say "at least 2 years", now would one? In what bizarro-universe is 4 years not included in the set of numbers that are "at least 2 years"?

[PatriotX]

Nonsense. Of course you did. That's precisely what is at issue.Would you be so kind as to point out the specific language I used to do this thng?
AFAICT, I only addressed what was presented in the posted snippet. I adressed the content Mr. Franks' statement rather than the contents of his mind.

Unless the question was, "What's a completely ridiculous incorrect guess as to how long the Iraq war might take?", I don't see how you can argue that the quote doesn't support the contention that Kerry's goal is at least within the realm of reason. With a little more imagination and a little more time, I'm sure you could come up with more possible questions. But, that's neither here nor there. What's at issue is how much can be reliably discerned from a quote w/o context.
You may well be right about what Mr. Franks was implying.

You're grasping at straws. Yes, I suppose aliens could have used a mind-control ray to make him say "at least a year", when he really meant, "much, much longer than 4 years". Is that what you mean by "other possibility"? Certainly not what I had in mind. But if you like, I could humor you.
I intended to point out how Mr. Franks' assessment is fluid. I wasn't using the info to try and make the case that Mr. Franks really meant, "much, much longer than 4 years."

Whether he specifically used the words "I agree with Kerry" (which he obviously wouldn't do), is not the point. Agreed. Taken as a given already.


The point is that he was throwing around numbers similar (less, in fact) to what Kerry is stating as his goal. If one considers 4 years to be absolutely, unequivocably out of the question, one would not say "at least 2 years", now would one? No, I suppose not. however, Avenger wasn't talking about what's "within the question." Avenger specifcally used the phrase "perfectly realistic." Thaty's what I was addressing, teh realm of probability, rather than the realm of possibility.
As a way of explanation, consider this example of the vagaries of American language.
If I were to calculate how long it would take me to get from Dallas to DC on foot, I might take my sprinting speed and use it to generate a number- x days.
It would then be perfectly (and technically) correct and true to say, "It'll take at least x days for me to get to DC from Dallas on foot."
However, this is not a statement of what's "perfectly realistic" or even about what I think is perfectly realistic.

Rumsfeld's paraphrased as having said "at least two years." This estimate may well have the equivalent likelihood as me sprinting from Dallas to DC. There's no discussion of what the "no more than" number would be. Nor (more to the point) is there any discussion of what the most likely or expected time frame would be.
There's only a bottom limit mentioned. "It will not be shorter than this," is not the same as "It'll prob'ly be about this long."

If there were more info than the snippets provided, then more conclusive conclusions could be reached.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Here is Kerry's position on Iraq on 1/23/2003, given within a foreign policy speech at Georgetown University (http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=4782&keyword=&phrase=&contain=&PHPSESSID=701913944addd4e2ee2d7d33dda5b060):

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Kerry's position on Iraq has not changed in the least since prior to the Iraq war. Not only has he been consistent, but he has again been prescient This charge that he has reversed course is simply another lie.

On a related note, I recommend strongly that everyone watch the movie Outfoxed, which gives an idea as to how these types of lies about Kerry's positions get disseminated.

[blowero]

Would you be so kind as to point out the specific language I used to do this thng?

Yes, you said, "Technically, all he says in that snippet is that he doesn't know." Unless you are playing some sort of semantic game, you are implying that Franks is NOT making any implication as to how long the war might take, but rather is ONLY saying that he doesn't know how long the war might take. So yes, you WERE addressing "whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take", in spite of your protestations to the contrary.

AFAICT, I only addressed what was presented in the posted snippet. I adressed the content Mr. Franks' statement rather than the contents of his mind.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing semantic games here.

Certainly not what I had in mind. But if you like, I could humor you.
I intended to point out how Mr. Franks' assessment is fluid. I wasn't using the info to try and make the case that Mr. Franks really meant, "much, much longer than 4 years."

Whether Franks' statement is "fluid" is not the point in question. The point in question is whether Kerry's stated goal of 4 years is completely out of the question, or whether it is reasonable.

No, I suppose not. however, Avenger wasn't talking about what's "within the question." Avenger specifcally used the phrase "perfectly realistic." Thaty's what I was addressing, teh realm of probability, rather than the realm of possibility.
As a way of explanation, consider this example of the vagaries of American language.
If I were to calculate how long it would take me to get from Dallas to DC on foot, I might take my sprinting speed and use it to generate a number- x days.
It would then be perfectly (and technically) correct and true to say, "It'll take at least x days for me to get to DC from Dallas on foot."
However, this is not a statement of what's "perfectly realistic" or even about what I think is perfectly realistic.

Hmmm...not really interested in arguing niggling details with you by way of convoluted analogies. I think you're missing the broader point here.

Rumsfeld's paraphrased as having said "at least two years." This estimate may well have the equivalent likelihood as me sprinting from Dallas to DC. There's no discussion of what the "no more than" number would be. Nor (more to the point) is there any discussion of what the most likely or expected time frame would be.

I think you're really reaching here.

There's only a bottom limit mentioned. "It will not be shorter than this," is not the same as "It'll prob'ly be about this long."

And similarly, "It will be at least 2 years", is inconsistent with "4 years is unreasonable".

Nobody said there WAS an upper limit mentioned. We're discussing whether a GOAL of 4 years is REASONABLE, not whether there is an absolute guarantee of it being within 4 years. You're arguing against a strawman.

[PatriotX]

Yes, you said, "Technically, all he says in that snippet is that he doesn't know." Unless you are playing some sort of semantic game, you are implying that Franks is NOT making any implication as to how long the war might take, but rather is ONLY saying that he doesn't know how long the war might take. So yes, you WERE addressing "whether or not Mr Franks had an idea of how long things would take", in spite of your protestations to the contrary.
My milages varies. I think people can have lots of ideas abou things that they don't sa. To me this is evidence that it's useful to consider having an idea about something as distinct from statements about that something. While the two things are related, they are seperate items, AFAICT.
YMMV.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing semantic games here. No worries. I was just pointing out the facts.

Whether Franks' statement is "fluid" is not the point in question. The point in question is whether Kerry's stated goal of 4 years is completely out of the question, or whether it is reasonable. While that was Avenger's point, my point was that there wasn't enough info presented to have certainty with the conclusions that Avenger reached.

After all the source cited by Avenger's a year old. I provided evidence that suggested Mr. Franks' assessment may have changed in the a few months (April - July). If this is the case, It's possible that Mr. Franks's assessment at the timeo f Avenger's post may have changed as well.

Hmmm...not really interested in arguing niggling details with you by way of convoluted analogies. Yet you've replied anyway. How thoughtful. The 'niggling details' constitute the entire focus of my posts re Avengere's post.


I think you're missing the broader point here.Depending on what you define as the 'broader point' I was intentionally not addressing it. Hence, I posted what I did about Avenger's conlusions rather than about 'the broader point'.


And similarly, "It will be at least 2 years", is inconsistent with "4 years is unreasonable". I understand you're saying this. What I'm pointing out is that there's not enough information to reach this conclusion. If you have a citation that shows this to be the case, please provide it. Otherwise, we're left with only your say-so, (or the "it's-common-sense" citation).

Nobody said there WAS an upper limit mentioned. We're discussing whether a GOAL of 4 years is REASONABLE, not whether there is an absolute guarantee of it being within 4 years. You're arguing against a strawman. Since I did not assert that anyone said "there WAS an upper limit mentioned," I'm not sure why you would think this. I did not make a case that anyone (posters) did say something that they did not. I am making the case that people (Rumsfeld) did not say things which they're said to've.
I'm just pointing out that there was not enough information provided. Then I noted some other relevant info that could be used make more reliable conclusions.
I noted that the bottom end of an estimate is distinct from a "perfectly reasonable" estimate. the two may be the same in some instances, but they are not necessarily so.

As I don't know how else to explain myself I retire.

[jshore]

Having read this thread, all I can say is: Are Sam Stone, Brutus, and Shodan really this desperate?

[Then...considers the President they are trying to defend with these diversions...Hmmm, I guess I see why.]

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I would also like to sum up regarding important points vis a vis the OP that have gone unchallenged.

Kerry: consistent on Iraq from the beginning.

Kerry: strongly concerned about mismanagement and the failure to commit adequate strength to the effort to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan from the beginning.

[DoctorJ]

Despite what the Republicans this year will tell you, there is nothing wrong with setting a goal and then revising or changing that goal as circumstances change. I'd like to think that intelligent people understand this.

For instance, I might tell a hospitalized patient, "I'd like to get you home by Friday." That doesn't mean I won't send her Wednesday if she's ready to go, or that I won't keep her over the weekend if I'm still concerned about something, or that I won't scrap my goal altogether if if catastrophic new events happen.

I also don't understand why it's so difficult to reconcile the ideas that we need more troops in Iraq right now and we'd like to bring them home sooner.

All this talk about "steely resolve" is like saying that the last thing you want to do when you're driving down a curvy road is turn the steering wheel. You have to stay the course!

[blowero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
And similarly, "It will be at least 2 years", is inconsistent with "4 years is unreasonable".
---------------------------------
I understand you're saying this. What I'm pointing out is that there's not enough information to reach this conclusion. If you have a citation that shows this to be the case, please provide it. Otherwise, we're left with only your say-so, (or the "it's-common-sense" citation).

Well if common sense is disallowed in this debate, I guess I have nothing further to say. I've gotten mired in enough discussion on the level of "the meaning of 'is'" to know that it's going to go nowhere.

[blowero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
And similarly, "It will be at least 2 years", is inconsistent with "4 years is unreasonable".
---------------------------------
I understand you're saying this. What I'm pointing out is that there's not enough information to reach this conclusion. If you have a citation that shows this to be the case, please provide it. Otherwise, we're left with only your say-so, (or the "it's-common-sense" citation).

Well if common sense is disallowed in this debate, I guess I have nothing further to say. I've gotten mired in enough discussion on the level of "the meaning of 'is'" to know that it's going to go nowhere.

[RTFirefly]

OK, folks, some questions. We invaded Iraq in March 2003. Kerry's first term ends in January 2009 - just short of 6 years later.

1. During the run-up to war, did Bush so much as suggest to the American people that we might be there for anywhere near that long? (Hint: No.)

2. Did Bush expect from the beginning that we'd have to be there that long? If so, why did he hide this knowledge from the American people?

3. If he didn't expect this sort of long-term involvement, then when is Bush going to level with us about what has gone so terribly wrong that we need to stay far longer than expected?

[capacitor]

Sam, Brutus, high five on this:

After North Korea announced it has nukes and are quite willing to use them if they don't get what they want, the Bush administration decided to deploy fewer troops to the Demilitarized Zone.

How's that for cut and run?

[Brutus]

Sam, Brutus, high five on this:

After North Korea announced it has nukes and are quite willing to use them if they don't get what they want, the Bush administration decided to deploy fewer troops to the Demilitarized Zone.


Just as soon as your Brainiac-like intellect can explain to what infantrymen can do against nukes (other than die, that is), you'll have a point. Of course, you'll also have to explain why we moved some B-52s to Guam, and why some people think that taking out targets deep in the enemies rear is better suited to airpower (better yet, airpower that launches long-range cruise missles) than it is to a mech infantry brigade or two.

Come on. I know you can do it; I eagerly await your explanation!

[capacitor]

We deployed a huge percentage of the Atlantic Navy fleet near Cuba when they had Russian nukes.

As far as I am concerned, if N. Korea is designated as an 'Axis of Evil", the president must act upon it at a sniff of N. Korean uranium from one of their spy sattelites.