The President said:
Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.
It would send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve.
And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.
We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.
Sorry, but I disagree. I think a thoughtful phased plan of gradual troop withdrawl should naturally go with a plan of gradual Iraqi security force build-up. Why not? Of course there is a schedule for Iraqi security forces -- by such and such a date they plan to have x battalions of this type of soldiers; does it not follow that by that same date we can withdraw an equivalent number of our soldiers of the same type? We have already greatly reduced the number of armed forces in Iraq from the initial invasion because they're no longer needed. We probably have no plans to reduce our forces to zero, ever, subject to the continued in invitation of the freely elected Iraqi government. Why not be honest about it? Isn't it obvious that it takes much longer to create certain kinds of military units from scratch, for instance, Army aviation compared to Army MP's? So naturally we'll have our aviators there longer than our MP's, right?
Deadlines are powerful tools. They focus the mind. They force allocation of resources. In this case, I believe deadlines -- a carefully structured and phase series of deadlines all subject to review as any sensible person would do -- would send exactly the right message to the Iraqis, which is "You'd better get off the stick and get busy, friends, because by the fill-in-the-blank we are di-di-mow and you are on your own." I think this would stiffen their spines and get them serious. The worst thing that could happen to the Iraqi Army would be for it to become like the ARVN's were in Viet Nam, and you can't stiffen a bucket of spit with buck shot. That is the one scenario that worries me over there, and I think deadlines would be a good way to prevent the ARVNization of Iraq.
Another thought: Liberals are constantly saying Iraq has an insurgency because we are there. We caused it by invading and occupying the holy land of Mesopotania. Well, I think that's mostly bullcrap. Saddam Hussein kept the various terrorist groups/clans/tribes whatever you want to call the medieval mindset over there in line with an iron fist. And plastic shredders, poison gas, rape rooms, etc. The terrorists are not democrats at heart who are just pissed beyond their self control because the USA just happens to be there. But... I do think there's a grain of truth to that. A bit. Some of the foreign volunteers, the idiots from northern Africa in particular, are getting themselves all blowed up in Iraq just because they hate America. If we had a phased draw-down time table, and were seen to be sticking to it just like we stuck to the time table for the new Iraqi state, elections, constitution, etc., then we should see a corresponding drop in the foreign jihadi flow.
Just maybe. And if we didn't see a drop, then we would have proved that the terrorist insurgency was not because of our presence.
And another thing: don't we want to get out? Yes we do. So let's set up a schedule. A smart, phased, logical, subject-to-revision, subject to invitation schedule for withdrawing our forces. Of course, the left will say it stinks Bush lied told you so no matter what the President does. That should not stop us from doing the smart thing.