Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade  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. |
As bin Laden declared Iraq the major front in their war, I guess they're claiming victory and advancing in reverse to Afghanistan. Now, if we can get the 47,000 Nato troops promised in April, that would be substantial.
Obama has said that as president he would increase the number of troops and aid in Afghanistan, but when given the opportunity to vote in the Senate to do just that, he voted against the bill. What does he think we should believe?