[QUOTE=magellan01]
The latter would be accomplished by the timetable being issued—even privately. And are you sure that an announcement of our leaving would de-incentivize Al Qaeda? From what I’ve been hearing it seems that if the US were to go there would be a three-way grab for power between the Shia, Sunni and the Kurds. If I were the head of Al Qaeda and heard the US was leaving I’d say, "Okay boys, save your ammo. The war—the war that we can actually win starts on (stated date of withdrawal).
[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but an alternative that is even more likely is that Iraq turns into an authoritarian state, headed by a Shiite government (possibly in collaboration with the Kurds) and al Qaeda is driven out by force. Although the Sunnis might continue to fight on, they might very well face genocide (if that’s the right term) in the face of a Shiite/Kurd alliance-- that would be about 80% of the population.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If I were the head of Al Qaeda and heard the US was leaving I’d say, "Okay boys, save your ammo. The war—the war that we can actually win starts on (stated date of withdrawal).
[/QUOTE]
What war would that be? I thought Al Qaeda existed in order to attack Westeners in revenge for Western intervention in the Islamic world.
And although I haven’t been keeping up lately, aren’t most attacks on Americans done by Iraqis who don’t like us occupying their country?
And my take on you and your crowd is that it’s more important to find fault with what the Democrats supposedly think than to hold Bush & co. accountable for what they actually did.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
1
2. People are getting hung up on “secret”. I don’t mean something that might never get out. But something issued privately, that once it does get out, we can discount as rumor. Publicly our position would be “We’re staying until the job is done”. (Whatever that means is irrelavant to this discusion.) If we start pulling troops out on June 19, 2008, isn’t the important thing that they are leaving. Who cares if it was stated publicly ten months prior?
So, again, the question to you is, if you believe a timetable to Maliki and his gang would be helpful, given the opposition to doing so, wouldn’t the “private” issuance of said timetable accomplish what you hope a public issuance would accomplish? Isn’t the inmportant thing issuing the timetable?
[/QUOTE]
Look, Maliki’s “gang” is so infiltrated by insurgents that the chance of keeping this a secret is about that of us finding WMDs next week. Plus, knowledge of a timetable is only useful if it could be used for leverage for a political settlement. Keeping it secret is like keeping the Doomsday Machine secret.
As for al-Qaeda, a survey published in the Times this weekend shows that no one in Anbar province likes them. They hate us also, but not as intensely. aQ can evade us (though the rapid capture of the assassin of the anti-aQ leader seems to show we’ve got better intelligence than we used to) but not the people who live locally. A timetable will be notice for them to pack their bags for Pakistan.
[QUOTE=tagos]
I’d suggest that they would have the opposite reaction. Shit - in X number of days we’re going to be hunted down like dogs. Best try something risky.
There is no way in hell that the tiny number of Al-Q-in-Iraq are a viable ‘side’ in Iraq compared to the three major divisions.
[/QUOTE]
The fear is that the Sunnis might, out of desperation in fighting against a large Shia/Kurd majority look for any help they could find. If AQ is going to help them in their battle for power/survival, do you not think they would welcome that assistance and form an alliance of sorts?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Bush and the Republicans in power are politicians, not “military ex[pertes.” I reiterate that the assertion is horseshit and I would invite you to provide some substantial means by which the so-called “enemy” could use any knowledge of a timetable for withdrawal to its own advntage.
[/QUOTE]
Reread. Slowly. I never said they were one and the same. And for you to question that the fear is completely without expert authority shows that you are just going to sing the company song and not look at this critically. Feel free to move on if that is the case.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t see what the point would be. I also think it’s better for morale if the troops and their families have a known date for their return.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. That morale would be a positive. But it doesn’t go to the heart of the matter.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
So you’re FOR a timetable? I guess I don’t follow your question in that I don’t understand what kind of distinction you’retrying to draw between “secret” and “private.”
[/QUOTE]
I think that Kerry’s reasoning for a timetable has a lot of merit. I think it would definitly help. Now given that the timetable will NOT be given—and it won’t for the reason mentioned—publicly, why not try Plan B? Plan B being the issuance of a timetable in private while allowing the official public position of the US to be “we’re in it as long as it takes”? It seems that would allow Kerry’s idea to work it’s magic, possibly even more effectively. But, at least a timetabel would be issued and maybe lead to Maliki getting his shit together. If not, it’ll be the road we’re on. Should I put you down for this verison of “staying the course”?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That makes sense. I think the leaking on that point could be pretty bad, though. I have confidence that there are people who will ignore it or won’t hear of it and continue to attack anyway, but I think enough will get to know that it would be rendered reasonably ineffectual. And it only has to lead to a reasonably significant surge on the day after the troops leave to cast whoever in a bad light.
I think though that this seems to bypass your take on the matter; if Kerry and his crowd are just trying to hang this on Bush and the Republicans, your suggested idea would be an even better move for them; they’d continue to count on the U.S. not knowing about the secret timetable, allowing them to still be blamed, whilst also knowing that the U.S. will be out at some point (assuming they do genuinely want that also). It would get them both of those things, rather than one or the other; were they as motivated as you suggest, I think they’d be all for your idea rather than simply asking for an overt timetable.
[/QUOTE]
Almost. This would require for Kerry & Co. to publicly avow the policy that we’re in it for as long as it takes. They would have to give up this mantra by which they seek to separate themselves from Bush. The U.S. would have to appear pretty unified in this regard. The public officials with serious national security clout—Kerry, Clinton (both), Biden, etc.—would have to operate in the interest of the country for a change. :D*
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Maybe, but an alternative that is even more likely is that Iraq turns into an authoritarian state, headed by a Shiite government (possibly in collaboration with the Kurds) and al Qaeda is driven out by force. Although the Sunnis might continue to fight on, they might very well face genocide (if that’s the right term) in the face of a Shiite/Kurd alliance-- that would be about 80% of the population.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, but on the way to that authoritarian state, isn’t it possible/likely that the Sunnis will say “Uh-oh, there’s going to be a genocide, and we’re the target” and resist. If they feel they are fighting for their survival, and are in the minority, won’t they accept any help that is given them, specifically that from fellows Sunnis who call themselves Al Qaeda?
I think you’ve answered your own question. A public timetable is an easily-identifiable platform stance that differentiates Kerry & Co. from Bush’s stance on the withdrawal subject. Moreover, I believe some of the underlying purpose in pushing for a public timetable has little to do with Iraq, and a whole lot to do with public perception of how these candidates’ administrations will differ from the Bush administration. The Bush admin. has been shrouded in secrecy from the get-go, with as little as possible given over to public scrutiny. By touting a public withdrawal schedule, these candidates are illustrating that their admins would be more transparent and open about their dealings (truthfully or not).
And heck, it could very well be that the Bush admin has given a private deadline to Maliki and is merely telling the public that we’ll be there as long as it takes. Seems like a pretty standard way of doing things for this administration.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Exactly, but on the way to that authoritarian state, isn’t it possible/likely that the Sunnis will say “Uh-oh, there’s going to be a genocide, and we’re the target” and resist. If they feel they are fighting for their survival, and are in the minority, won’t they accept any help that is given them, specifically that from fellows Sunnis who call themselves Al Qaeda?
[/QUOTE]
Or, in Bush-speak, we have to leave Iraq so they will all fight each other over there so they won’t come over here.
As for the timetable stuff, I remember a very similar argument back in I think 2004, when things weren’t quite so bad on the ground. Many wanted timetables, and Bush and his supporters basically said well, if we did that the enemy would just mark his calendar, wait us out, and then unleash chaos after we leave. I always thought that was kinda weird – isn’t that exactly what we want? If they hid until we left, isn’t that a good thing? That means we can train the police and military in peace. That would mean people aren’t dying all over and we can stabilize the situation and then the police and military will be prepared when we leave. The Iraq government would have the strategic initiative, since we could choose the end date and be prepared. No?
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Or, in Bush-speak, we have to leave Iraq so they will all fight each other over there so they won’t come over here.
As for the timetable stuff, I remember a very similar argument back in I think 2004, when things weren’t quite so bad on the ground. Many wanted timetables, and Bush and his supporters basically said well, if we did that the enemy would just mark his calendar, wait us out, and then unleash chaos after we leave. I always thought that was kinda weird – isn’t that exactly what we want? If they hid until we left, isn’t that a good thing? That means we can train the police and military in peace. That would mean people aren’t dying all over and we can stabilize the situation and then the police and military will be prepared when we leave. The Iraq government would have the strategic initiative, since we could choose the end date and be prepared. No?
[/QUOTE]
I think you make a valid point, but if I remember correctly, there was no reason to believe that such a timetable would stop the attacks on the trainees. There was a push, again IIRC, by the opposition to prevent both the trainees from being trained and, or maybe this was the point, to scare Iraqis from becoming trainees.
But even if such a statement would cause AQ to just sit back and wait, is that really in the best interest of Iraq? I think it safe to say that Iraq would just turn into mayhem—who knows, maybe that’s inevitable no matter what.
[QUOTE=Beadalin]
I think you’ve answered your own question. A public timetable is an easily-identifiable platform stance that differentiates Kerry & Co. from Bush’s stance on the withdrawal subject. Moreover, I believe some of the underlying purpose in pushing for a public timetable has little to do with Iraq, and a whole lot to do with public perception of how these candidates’ administrations will differ from the Bush administration. The Bush admin. has been shrouded in secrecy from the get-go, with as little as possible given over to public scrutiny. By touting a public withdrawal schedule, these candidates are illustrating that their admins would be more transparent and open about their dealings (truthfully or not).
[/QUOTE]
But when it comes to conducting a war is there any evidence to suggest that more open = more effective? I think each type of information has to be weighed on its own. Siome info is better made public, while other info is best kept secret.
[QUOTE=Beadalin]
And heck, it could very well be that the Bush admin has given a private deadline to Maliki and is merely telling the public that we’ll be there as long as it takes. Seems like a pretty standard way of doing things for this administration.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=guizot]
Once it’s noticed that the troops are pulling out, things will escalate. (You can’t pull out in one day.) It doesn’t matter much if it’s announced or not.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe they could replace Gen. Petraeus with Robert Irsay…
ETA:
Why are we assuming that position 2 has great merit, again?
On the upside, it feels refreshing that I’m finally able to correctly use the term “begging the question.”
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Exactly, but on the way to that authoritarian state, isn’t it possible/likely that the Sunnis will say “Uh-oh, there’s going to be a genocide, and we’re the target” and resist. If they feel they are fighting for their survival, and are in the minority, won’t they accept any help that is given them, specifically that from fellows Sunnis who call themselves Al Qaeda?
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of begging the question, if the raison d’etre of AQ-I is to expel Westerners from Iraq, why would they have any motivation to stay in Iraq to slow down a genocide once that objective is accomplished?
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Why are we assuming that position 2 has great merit, again?
On the upside, it feels refreshing that I’m finally able to correctly use the term “begging the question.”
[/QUOTE]
Let me know when it actually happens. I’m posing a hypothetical, treating the merit of Kerry’s reasoning as a given. You are aware that a hypothetical will assume certain things as true, no?
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Speaking of begging the question, if the raison d’etre of AQ-I is to expel Westerners from Iraq, why would they have any motivation to stay in Iraq to slow down a genocide once that objective is accomplished?
[/QUOTE]
Because they might want to protect their fellow-Sunnis. Hopefully, my previous post to you will save you from this “begging the question” confusion that you seem infatuated with.
Coulda been more clear that you intended the assumption as a hypothetical, but whatever floats your boat.
Seriously, why make the assumption that position B has “great” merit? If it’s just to have a debate, knock yourself out. Otherwise, please support the proposition.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Because they might want to protect their fellow-Sunnis. Hopefully, my previous post to you will save you from this “begging the question” confusion that you seem infatuated with.
[/QUOTE]
I guess we need to establish whether their mission statement really is (essentially) “to scour all traces of Western Crusaderdom from the Caliphate”, and if it’s likely that protecting their fellow Sunnis will be a worthy reason to shift focus…
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Coulda been more clear that you intended the assumption as a hypothetical, but whatever floats your boat.
[/QUOTE]
Seemed to be clear enough for everyone else and they were able to float to the challenge. Maybe you have a leaky boat.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Seriously, why make the assumption that position B has “great” merit? If it’s just to have a debate, knock yourself out. Otherwise, please support the proposition.
[/QUOTE]
Because it is not what I was interested in debating. That should be clear from the OP and subsequent posts prior to yours. I assumed the merit of Kerry’s position for two reasons. One, it makes some sense to me. Two, and more important, it raises what I thought an interesting question, which is the reason for the OP.
So, why is it you think being Sunni is going to be a good enough reason for AQ to hang around once they’ve managed to purge the infidels from Iraq? They strike me as men on a mission, and that mission isn’t the protection of Sunnis from Shiites. If it were, I might have expected them to be a bit more active next door in Iran, no?