Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerad  That's great news for everybody.
But don't forget, the Democrats and Iraqis want a timetable/timeline, but the White House and McCain want a time horizon. Timetables/timelines are bad, but a time horizon is good. 
So what happens if we pull our troops out and the different factions call off their cease fire and go back at it? Will that still mean "success"? |
I haven't heard the time horizon phrasing. If it means what the JCS meant - that is, a timetable that is conditional upon events on the ground then I agree with that sentiment. The Fed raises and lowers interest rates based on such a scheme - they don't raise and lower it on a "timetable" but they can usually forecast what will happen given that events go a certain way.
The other point raised is that in some areas, al-Qaeda is the primary agitator, and increasingly they appear to be giving up on Iraq. In addition, the surge helped facilitate what they called the "oil spot" approach to securing a country - creating safe regions and letting them expand like an oil spot, until you secure the good faith of the people. In fact, the line of talk was more along the lines of - if al-Qaeda is giving up on Iraq, are they going to run to Afghanistan and start over? So it's more likely now that the principal agitators would be less likely to re-arm after a pullout. Iraq doesn't appear to be Lebanon.