Harry Hope wrote:

From TIME Magazine, 12/1/06:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1564991,00.html

The Phony Argument Against an Iraq Timetable

The Baker commission seems to be buying the administration's faulty
logic that setting a schedule for pulling out of Iraq will be an
invitation to insurgents to bide their time until we leave

By ROMESH RATNESAR

Now it can be revealed:

the Iraq Study Group will recommend a withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq.

Sort of.

According to leaks of its expected findings, the Baker-Hamilton
commission plans to call for a "pullback" of as many as 75,000 troops
from the front lines.

To those who believe that the only sensible option left in Iraq is for
the U.S. to begin the process of extricating itself, the Baker group's
proposal would seem to provide some reason for optimism.

But before those people get too excited, they should read the fine
print.

The Baker plan reportedly doesn't specify whether those troops should
actually be pulled out of the country, or simply redeployed to bases
on the periphery;

nor does it provide any indication of when, or even whether, the
remaining 70,000 U.S. troops would be pulled out -- though the
Washington Post reports the panel hopes that most would leave by 2008.

It appears likely that the Baker group will avoid making the one clear
and tangible proposal that could still turn the situation around in
Iraq:

setting a timetable for a U.S. pullout.

Democrats on the commission pushed for a deadline, arguing that only
the unequivocal reality of a U.S. withdrawal would compel the Iraqi
government to get its house in order and crack down on the militias
and death squads tearing the country apart.

But Baker reportedly opposed that proposal, stressing, among other
factors, a common refrain of President Bush's:

as David Sanger summed it up in The New York Times, "any firm deadline
would be an invitation to insurgents and sectarian groups to bide
their time until the last Americans were withdrawn, then seek to
overthrow the government."

And so the timetable idea was dropped.

But let's examine the administration's and Baker's anti-timetable
argument more closely.

As the thinking goes, the armed groups sowing mayhem in Iraq will lay
down their guns as soon as the U.S. fixes a date for withdrawal.

Since any reasonable timetable for withdrawal would still preserve
some kind of U.S. troop presence for the foreseeable future, Baker and
Bush would have you believe that tens of thousands of insurgents,
terrorists and militia members are prepared to contain their furies
for months, if not years -- after which time they will presumably
emerge tanned, rested and more bloodthirsty than ever.

It's a preposterous notion, since it also presumes that U.S. forces
would decide to observe some kind of cease-fire as well.

Baker knows as well as anyone that U.S. forces will be carrying out
combat operations right up until the day they leave Iraq -- and almost
surely for years after that.

The insurgents may try to "bide their time," but it's highly unlikely
the U.S. military would afford them that luxury.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that the Baker-Bush position
is right:

the U.S. sets a timetable for withdrawal, and a prolonged lull in
violence follows.

Is any reasonable person prepared to argue that this would be a bad
thing?

If anything, a pause in fighting would pose a greater threat to the
long-term prospects of the insurgents and militias than it would to
the government.

The combatants in the civil war feed off the fears of ordinary Iraqis,
who look to the armed groups for protection against their sectarian
rivals.

If the violence were to suddenly stop, the influence of those groups
would plummet.

And that would give the U.S. and Iraq's Arab neighbors the opportunity
to flood the country with reconstruction aid and stand up an army
ready to defend a government in Baghdad.

By the time the U.S. left and the bad guys were ready to fight again,
they would have lost their ability to dictate the terms of the battle.

The reality, of course, is that neither scenario is likely.

Fixing a timeline for withdrawal isn't going to usher in a
prelapsarian period of tranquility any more than it will make the
violence worse.

The presence of U.S. forces will have no impact on whether Iraq goes
to war with itself, because it already has.

If the U.S. declares that it plans to leave Iraq, it's safe to assume
that almost nothing will change.

The war will continue and more people will die.

Setting a deadline would at least ensure that no more Americans will.

"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?"

"A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear
was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day
our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to
follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by
people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and
ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red
Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of
American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."


---Interview with former North Vietnamese General Bui Tin
The Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1995


"Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would
win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald
Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history;
the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't
dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by
attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in
their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South
Vietnam."

--- Bui Tin, Ibid

--
NeoLibertarian

Harry Hope wrote:

From TIME Magazine, 12/1/06:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1564991,00.html

The Phony Argument Against an Iraq Timetable

The Baker commission seems to be buying the administration's faulty
logic that setting a schedule for pulling out of Iraq will be an
invitation to insurgents to bide their time until we leave

By ROMESH RATNESAR

Now it can be revealed:

the Iraq Study Group will recommend a withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq.

Sort of.

According to leaks of its expected findings, the Baker-Hamilton
commission plans to call for a "pullback" of as many as 75,000 troops
from the front lines.

To those who believe that the only sensible option left in Iraq is for
the U.S. to begin the process of extricating itself, the Baker group's
proposal would seem to provide some reason for optimism.

But before those people get too excited, they should read the fine
print.

The Baker plan reportedly doesn't specify whether those troops should
actually be pulled out of the country, or simply redeployed to bases
on the periphery;

nor does it provide any indication of when, or even whether, the
remaining 70,000 U.S. troops would be pulled out -- though the
Washington Post reports the panel hopes that most would leave by 2008.

It appears likely that the Baker group will avoid making the one clear
and tangible proposal that could still turn the situation around in
Iraq:

setting a timetable for a U.S. pullout.

Democrats on the commission pushed for a deadline, arguing that only
the unequivocal reality of a U.S. withdrawal would compel the Iraqi
government to get its house in order and crack down on the militias
and death squads tearing the country apart.

But Baker reportedly opposed that proposal, stressing, among other
factors, a common refrain of President Bush's:

as David Sanger summed it up in The New York Times, "any firm deadline
would be an invitation to insurgents and sectarian groups to bide
their time until the last Americans were withdrawn, then seek to
overthrow the government."

And so the timetable idea was dropped.

But let's examine the administration's and Baker's anti-timetable
argument more closely.

As the thinking goes, the armed groups sowing mayhem in Iraq will lay
down their guns as soon as the U.S. fixes a date for withdrawal.

Since any reasonable timetable for withdrawal would still preserve
some kind of U.S. troop presence for the foreseeable future, Baker and
Bush would have you believe that tens of thousands of insurgents,
terrorists and militia members are prepared to contain their furies
for months, if not years -- after which time they will presumably
emerge tanned, rested and more bloodthirsty than ever.

It's a preposterous notion, since it also presumes that U.S. forces
would decide to observe some kind of cease-fire as well.

Baker knows as well as anyone that U.S. forces will be carrying out
combat operations right up until the day they leave Iraq -- and almost
surely for years after that.

The insurgents may try to "bide their time," but it's highly unlikely
the U.S. military would afford them that luxury.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that the Baker-Bush position
is right:

the U.S. sets a timetable for withdrawal, and a prolonged lull in
violence follows.

Is any reasonable person prepared to argue that this would be a bad
thing?

If anything, a pause in fighting would pose a greater threat to the
long-term prospects of the insurgents and militias than it would to
the government.

The combatants in the civil war feed off the fears of ordinary Iraqis,
who look to the armed groups for protection against their sectarian
rivals.

If the violence were to suddenly stop, the influence of those groups
would plummet.

And that would give the U.S. and Iraq's Arab neighbors the opportunity
to flood the country with reconstruction aid and stand up an army
ready to defend a government in Baghdad.

By the time the U.S. left and the bad guys were ready to fight again,
they would have lost their ability to dictate the terms of the battle.

The reality, of course, is that neither scenario is likely.

Fixing a timeline for withdrawal isn't going to usher in a
prelapsarian period of tranquility any more than it will make the
violence worse.

The presence of U.S. forces will have no impact on whether Iraq goes
to war with itself, because it already has.

If the U.S. declares that it plans to leave Iraq, it's safe to assume
that almost nothing will change.

The war will continue and more people will die.

Setting a deadline would at least ensure that no more Americans will.

"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?"

"A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear
was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day
our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to
follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by
people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and
ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red
Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of
American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."


---Interview with former North Vietnamese General Bui Tin
The Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1995


"Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would
win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald
Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history;
the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't
dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by
attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in
their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South
Vietnam."

--- Bui Tin, Ibid

--
NeoLibertarian

I've been telling you for weeks:
Nothing that the "Baker-Hamilton" Iraq Study Group will come up will
deal up front with the underlying purpose of the iraq war . The
REAL object of the invasion -- and the definition of "victory"--is
the establishment united states hegemony over the petroleum resources
of iraq and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent
military presence which would/will preserve that hegemony for the
foreseeable future.