raveneye

In the big defense authorization bill yesterday in the Senate, both sides voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment that requests that the WH (1) describe a concrete exit strategy from the war in Iraq; and (2) provide a report every three months of the U.S. progress towards achieving the exit goals.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...nation-big-pix

This is of course a flip-flop by the Republicans in Congress, who have been opposed to such a measure as "cut-and-run" cowardice that just encourages the terrorists. Bill Frist, for example, switched sides just in the course of a single day when he saw that his party supported the amendment.

For the democrats, however, this has been a long time coming. Although language supporting an explicit timetable was voted down, nevertheless the passed amendment contains an implicit timetable of one year to begin withdrawing.

I think the amendment is a very good idea. I think it is indefensible that there has been apparently no accountability to Congress for an exit strategy in this war after two years, with the president simply dodging the question with "we'll leave when we've accomplished the mission" (an ironic and inane comment especially given the "mission accomplished" photo-op).

Does anybody here disagree with the amendment? Regardless of what the exit strategy should be, don't you think that there should be one, and that it should be concrete so that the American people can judge explicitly how close the U.S. is to that goal? And how efficiently and successfully the administration has been moving to achieve that goal?

EDIT: here's the linked article:

cyrnel

An exit strategy is great, but a timeline is naive.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

raveneye

I think it's a matter of where you draw the line. If the Bush administration were to say that they fully expect us to still be there 50 years from now, would the ensuing revolt be naive? What about 30 years, 20, 15, 10 years . . . .? On the other hand, it's probably naive to think we should be out by the end of next year. Where the line is that divides naivete from pragmatism is a matter of opinion, but I think everybody if pushed is going to draw the line somewhere. Our resources are not infinite.

I get the feeling that the administration thinks it's naive to expect us to be out earlier than 10 years from now. I think that is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, of both parties, and both are saying that the year 2006 is going to be the defining, make-or-break year, and that year is mentioned in the amendment as a year during which there should be a significant transition to complete Iraqi sovereignty.

cyrnel

Granted, we need realistic goals. Set them, measure progress, respond, repeat. In the deepest recess of war planning schedules are part of the game, but they're fluid. What I don't like is a public schedule becoming the tail that wags the dog. The fluidity becomes another horse race of failures for anyone with a microphone. Then media stokes the public which fuels useless knee-jerking fires.

Feels like we're all the children asking the parents "are we there yet?"

I agree we haven't seen a well-defined set of goals beyond "deposing then democracy". This was "a difficult" war without definitions against an enemy who's happy to bob & weave where we aren't. Not a great formula for success.

I, like most of us I think, would like to see the coordination between US and Iraqi actions gradually improve to a point it's safe to turn things over entirely. As quickly as possible, but without damaging the process. We can't expect perfection, and we can't expect a mirror of ourselves, but we need to give them the best chance to decide their own fate without the pointless chaos of cutting & running. While I'd love to be privy to timelines & tactics, making them public would be conceding a roadmap to our failure to the enemy. So we have to trust the generals to some extent, which isn't made easier by the ups & downs.

It isn't pleasant, this stuff.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Ustwo

And they said the civil war would be over by the first Christmass...

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

politicophile

This amendment was entirely pointless for one simple reason: the Whitehouse doesn't know when we'll be able to withdraw from Iraq. Sure, it makes Congress feel important to receive periodic updates about the status of the reconstruction, but what good does it do?

We should not set a timetable for withdrawal because military campaigns should always be governed by military concerns, not political ones. It doesn't matter if it is politically convenient to, say, bring troops home right before an election: the troops should leave or stay based on the available military intelligence, not on some Berlin Conference-style plan drawn up in a bunker 5,000 miles away.

We also should not create a document outlining the conditions that need to be met before we can withdraw. This document would otherwise be known as "Al-Qaida's Guide on How to Indefinitely Postpone the Withdrawal of American Forces". The conditions must of strategic necessity be flexible. Generally speaking, American forces should be withdrawn in proportion to the availability of Iraqi police and military units that are able to take over security work.

I'm with McCain on this one.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Charlatan

I think the most important thing about this is that Republican senators came out in support of this. They are starting to distance themselves from a President who is down in the polls. It looks like the GOP is starting to treat Bush like a lame duck president. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

raveneye

You can be more forthcoming about what the military objectives are without having a specific timetable.

McCain wants more accountability from the WH on the military objectives of the war. His objection to the amendment is simply that its language is too strong regarding a timeline for withdrawal. I also agree with him that we need more accountability from the WH.