Centerfield

I dunno Matt, I don't see anything here in the stuff you've cited that's "not encouraging."

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that when HC was asked about our Iraq policy at a press conference for an unrelated event, she should be expected to make a detailed point-by-point policy statement that explains exactly what we should do to succeed in Iraq,

After all, she's not the President. And even the President hasn't really done that, as you admit.

She simply made some simple, general common sense statements, and ones which you yourself are saying you agree with. According to what others (Tully and Bobby) say, there's already a plan in place to begin drawing down troops after the next elections. So it seems that the current expectation is that we're going to begin a drawdown in the coming months, and that the pace will depend on how things unfold. Because as she and Bush and countless others have pointed out, it would be a shame and a disgrace if we pulled out and left Iraq hung out to dry, to descend into a civil war.

I think it's up to Bush to be as explicit as possible about what the "job" is, and to take it to the people that it's crucial we support doing it, both for the sake of Iraqis whose country is in disarray, and for our future national security.

I don't see what's at all waffle-y or 3rd way about HC's statement on withdrawal, especially given the additional context of her obvious qualification that moving out too quickly would endanger the relative stability of Iraq and thus the entire middle east.

Here's the thing: everyone is in favor of getting our boys out of harm's way. the only question is about the circumstances of exactly how and when we do it. I don't see anyone disagreeing with the notion that we don't want large numbers of troops in Iraq over the long term.

HC has quickly described an outline that IMO is pretty close to whatever consensus we've developed here on what to do going forward. We've been training Iraqi security forces for precisely this reason, and we know that the meter is running on the continued pragmatic tolerance of the Iraqi people for our presence on such a large scale.

Undoubtedly though, this is going to be the hardest part yet, pulling back at exactly the proper speed. All sorts of opportunists are going to be looking for ways to fill whatever vacuum pockets we leave. This will be the biggest challenge yet. It's going to be hard, and it's going to be dangerous, and there will be more unsettling incidents. It's inevitable if you ask me. And frankly, it's ludicrous to expect congresscritters to sport detailed planned on exactly how to best do this. It's much better left to experts to pcik from the paletts of least bad options, and prepare people to expect that it's not going to be a sunday afternoon picnic.

In fact, thinking on it right now as I write, I think I'd GREATLY prefer it if senators, representatives, and governors and candidates and pundits and so on and so forth didn't egomaniacally and pretentiously interject themselves into things by saying exactly how we should do this. And I also hope that the same critters refrain from opportunistically criticizing the way we proceed with pulling back by using hindsight to say that a given procedure was an obvious mistake in judgement.

The more people that are on board with the idea that we are beginning to withdraw because it's time for Iraqis to begin taking more control, and because they are getting more prepared each day, the better it will go. The more people that believe we're just bailing, the harder it's going to go for our troops and for Iraqis.

At this most dangerous and crucial point where we are beginning to contemplate exactly how we'll begin pulling back, there is definitely a strong element of self-fulfilling prophecy.

What, a Clinton triangulating? Say it ain't so!

Hillary is going to continue dancing away from both ends of the spectrum while not asying anything truly profound. She'll save her real Sistah Souljah moments for the real campign season. Right now she's doing her best to be "centrist" and sound independent--while Bill goes and does the base-stoking with the MoveOn wing of the party.

Another two-for-one.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that when HC was asked about our Iraq policy at a press conference for an unrelated event, she should be expected to make a detailed point-by-point policy statement that explains exactly what we should do to succeed in Iraq.

Granted, which is why I find the insinuation that she is leading on this issue, wrong. I do think it is reasonable to expect someone who is critical of the President to come up with some sort of an alternative. For instance: Biden, McCain, and Hagel have all said in some way what they would do differently. Hillary seems to want to tell her base she would withdraw, while at the same time let the rest of America know she is not one of the left. Weeks ago it appeared she was in the Lieberman, formerly Murtha, Biden, "we have to do what it takes to win" camp. I can't conclude after her comments, regardless of how brief they are, that is still the case. To me, that is discouraging, as I was hoping that she was going the other way.

In fact, thinking on it right now as I write, I think I'd GREATLY prefer it if senators, representatives, and governors and candidates and pundits and so on and so forth didn't egomaniacally and pretentiously interject themselves into things by saying exactly how we should do this.

Fine, but then don't bitch about how things are going. If you do, than offer an alternative. I agree that at some level they should stay out of it, but they can't use Iraq to further their political agenda and then not propose any ideas of their own.

HC has quickly described an outline that IMO is pretty close to whatever consensus we've developed here on what to do going forward.

Maybe, but that is why I posted what I did. I am not sure that the consensus is correct or that we are at the right stage to even be having the discussion about withdrawal. The fact that they are preparing for withdrawal, in my eyes, has more to do with low approval ratings and politics in large part, not logic. Really, can we not see a scenario where withdrawal from Iraq before the end of 2006 means anything but failure?

I don't see what's at all waffle-y or 3rd way about HC's statement on withdrawal, especially given the additional context of her obvious qualification that moving out too quickly would endanger the relative stability of Iraq and thus the entire middle east.

I fully admit that is entirely possible, and that it is possible I am taking her comments the wrong way. I hope that I am.

Note: Wars are not run by consensus, and should not be. They're not community meetings about stray dogs or trash service. And if there were no other lesson from Vietnam (and there's dozens, mostly not the popular wisdom ones) let it be this--wars should not be micromanaged by politicians from Washington, either in Congress or the White House.

And let's distinguish between drawdowns and withdrawal. I sincerely doubt we're "withdrawing" from Iraq during this administration, or even the next. But we will begin drawing down next year at some point.

Joe Leiberman reassures the Iraqis that we're not going to abandon them.

And let's distinguish between drawdowns and withdrawal. I sincerely doubt we're "withdrawing" from Iraq during this administration, or even the next. But we will begin drawing down next year at some point.

Well OK, let's! If we can... isn't the thinking behind a drawdown that it's part of a phased withdrawal? I don't see any reason to think that when HC said "we're going to be withdrawing our young men and women" she necessarily meant we'd be removing all of them very soon.

Seems to me that it has always been the expectation that we'd scale back our troop committment as circumstances allowed, as trained Iraqi troops came on line. And apparently it's pretty much been confirmed that plans for some force reduction are already in place, and will go forward soon after the next Iraqi elections, which are when, December?

Presumedly HC is one of the people that knows this, right? So why can't we just assume that HC is pretty much explaining what she basically knows we're planning to start doing? She's clever enough to position herself to look like a leader by saying stuff like this. Let's face it, when we do a drawdown after the elections, that's pretty much a signal to Iraqis that we're going to expect them to start doing more and more driving as time passes.

We need to look past rhetoric and political jockeying here. HC can score a few points by pointing out that Bush has been vague enough to sound as though our committment is on the open-ended side. But we know it's not, the first drawdowns are coming, and we are going to try scaling back. The speed and scope will vary depending on how various circumstances unfold. That HAS to be how we do it. We're not going to "abandon" Iraqis OR stay forever in very large numbers.

What's so wrong with a timeline?

In business, any meaningful initiative comes with a timeline. The executive leadership and the stock holders would never tolerate a serious mission without defined, measureable goals and a specific timetable.

Either we expect the Iraqi's nascent security forces to attain self-sufficiency in stages...or we don't.

If we so expect, then we need to spur them along with a timetable.

The argument that creating a timetable is invigourating al Qaeda by telegraphing our "surrender date" is nonsense. The terrorists, having steadily expanded their activity since shortly after the overthrow of Hussein, is nowhere near its "last throes", despite typically false Mr. Cheney's assessments.

"The argument that creating a timetable is invigourating al Qaeda by telegraphing our "surrender date" is nonsense. "

Actualy Andy, it precisely because that arguement is not "nonsense" that creating a specific timetable for withdrawl is a horrendous idea. All you have to do is read the memoirs of the top NVA millitary planners during the Vietnam War to understand how something like that would effect the current situation.

In essence, the insurgency (whether it's al Qaeda or Baathists or 3rd party players.... and lets not forget that there are mutiple different parties involved in the insurgency...all with thier own goals and motivations.... and many of them contradictary) KNOWS they can't defeat us conventionaly in the field. What they believe is that they can OUTLAST us.... by making our continued presence in Iraq as costly as possible, and straining the tolerance of the American public for war beyond the breaking point. As long as they continue to believe that, they will continue to struggle and refuse to consider other options. Let that be another lesson that Vietnam teaches us.... from the lips of the North Vietnamese, themselves..... you know, the insurgency which won.

What businesses generally DON'T do with such timetables is make them public knowledge. They're usually viewed as confidential and proprietary.

Are we so sure that no one in the admin or at the Pentagon has anything resembling such a timetable, in rough form? Or that they're keeping such info within the circle of people that they deem to be ones that need to know.

The notion that the lack of a public timetable therefore means that the admin thinks there's no need for transitional planning is just pure crap. FrankIy, I find this line of "reasoning" dumfounding in its stupidity.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that there may be some genuine virtue in the admin playing this closer to its vest than others, at least some with questionable motives, might prefer?

Obviously, OPSEC, federal law and UCMJ doesn't allow me to speak to any details here, but I would say that not only has BK hit this one on the head, but Congress knows a lot more about the existence of time "standards" associated with each of our strategic objectives. The problem is that when many of the strategic objectives are CLASSIFIED, you can't release the time "standards" without compromising the objectives.

But we briefed more than two dozen Congressmen during my tenure in Kabul, and I can assure you that somewhere in Iraq there's a bunch of majors/lieutenant-colonels who are doing the same.