Kerry is now suggesting that if elected he will be able to engineer a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq during the next four years. I haven’t been able to find the full text of the speech, but here and here are two cites reporting on the speech. I think both headlines are misleading. He doesn’t ‘pledge’ a withdrawal, he puts a bunch of conditionals around it. He doesn’t ‘sketch an exit plan’ because he gives no useful details. The problem is that he is talking about it as a realistic possibility at all. Even with full European cooperation (which is itself an unrealistic expectation from Kerry) there couldn’t be a noteworthy draw-down in Iraq during the next term.
This is the most worrying line:
Asked how long it would take him to bring troops home, Kerry said he would consider his approach “an unsuccessful policy if I hadn’t brought significant numbers of troops back home within the first term.”
When your policy goals are in the ‘bring the troops home’ vein instead of a ‘we need to change X in the Middle East’ vein (or at least ‘X in Iraq’) you aren’t taking the War on Terrorism seriously. Bringing the troops home will be a side effect of a successful long-term Middle East policy. It is a stupid goal in and of itself.
From the New York Times, May 3, 2003.
The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.
The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.
Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations.
The British are organizing a “force generation” conference next week in London to solicit troops for the effort, and another conference is likely to be held later this month in Warsaw.
The Bush administration’s aim is to bring most of the American troops here back to their bases in the United States and Europe so they can prepare for potential crises.
The administration does not want substantial numbers of American forces to be tied down in Iraq. It is eager to avoid the specter of American occupation, and it is hoping to shift much of the peacekeeping burden of stabilizing Iraq to other governments.
If the administration plan is carried out, the effect would be to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq from over 130,000 soldiers and marines at present to 30,000 troops or fewer by the fall.
Today’s date is August 3, 2004. Your cite is May 3, 2003. The Bush team being foolishly optimistic at a year ago right after their astonishing victory over the Iraqi army but gradually realizing that they could not withdraw is no excuse for Kerry to be foolishly optimistic now.
[Kerry] “does not want substantial numbers of American forces to be tied down in Iraq. It is eager to avoid the specter of American occupation, and it is hoping to shift much of the peacekeeping burden of stabilizing Iraq to other governments.”
Makes sense to me.
I think you’re reaching to read too much into his comment. Presidents live with unsuccessful policy all the time.
… there couldn’t be a noteworthy draw-down in Iraq during the next term.
Can you cite some support for that statement? Tommy Franks is quoted in this article today as saying that “the U.S. will have to maintain substantial numbers of troops in Iraq for three to five years.”
Or, maybe Kerry isn’t so optimistic about the drawdown, but he’s basing his statement on the expectation that his first term won’t start until 2008. B-)
How does Frank’s statement contradict the idea that there can’t be a significant draw-down in the next term? If anything it seems to support that idea.
You’re assuming that when possible President Kerry pulls US troops home, it will leave the fledgling Iraqi government handling a crisis alone. Even though you mention the possibility of European troops (which you say is unrealistic for some reason), you don’t consider the possibility of UN troops, or mention the current discussions among Islamic states for a muslim peacekeeping force.
you don’t consider the possibility of UN troops
Simply reflects that the UN doesn’t have an army
“Even though you mention the possibility of European troops (which you say is unrealistic for some reason)”
Umm, maybe because they don’t have equipment, a huge percentage of them are poorly trained conscripts who are serving out their ‘government service’, there aren’t very many of them, those that exist tend to be tied down in Kosovo, and they weren’t made available in the clear case of Afghanistan–even now.
Do you need more reasons?
How about, fielding them would cost a significant amount of money when the EU is already hurting.
Oh and I didn’t even mention that most European countries would be flatly unwilling which is a hugely important point.
Considering the history of troops from Islamic states in their own countries, I suspect that the idea of a large Islamic ‘peace-keeping’ force might need to be considered carefully by anyone who is even remotely interested in human rights. And that might be eligible for ‘understament of the year’.
Now that Tommy Franks has retired he seems to be a loose cannon. Someone should reign him in before he goes out again and gives the impression that Kerry has any credibility.
“Simply reflects that the UN doesn’t have an army”
Not yet. Bwwoooo-hhhaa-haa-ha.
Ahem. Should have said “UN peacekeeping force”. Who are allowed to shoot at badguys.
Now that Tommy Franks has retired he seems to be a loose cannon.
Really? How so?
How does Frank’s statement contradict the idea that there can’t be a significant draw-down in the next term? If anything it seems to support that idea.
I thought it was simple arithmetic:
– Tommy Franks: “signficant” numbers required for 3 to 5 years.
– Kerry wants to bring “significant” numbers home by end of his 1st term.
– Kerry’s 1st term would end in 4.25 years.
So Tommy Franks seems to think that Kerry’s goal isn’t outside the bounds of possibility. Looks like they’re both talking about the same approximate timeframe, with Kerry being a bit more optimistic.
Who are allowed to shoot at badguys.
You are talking about UN Peacekeepers (do they get bullets?).
kenB-Tommy talks about substantial numbers
Of course Franks is also talking about wanting another 80,000+ troops in Iraq while Kerry has pretty much committed to not increasing troop levels.
And Kerry is talking as if it is likely to be sooner than the end of the term. As if the end of the term is the outside of his range.
But my point is that the focus is wrong. Franks if focusing on a plan to rebuild Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism. Kerry is focusing on removing the troops as if that was an important goal in itself.
That focus is disturbing.
What Tommy does best in his book is affirm that even the Arabs thought Saddam had WMD.
Must be what carsick is worried about.
Whatever, Holsclaw.
Bush blew it. The transformational utopian vision died in the fall of 2003. You think Bob Blackwill was brought in to implement Wolfowitz’s plan?
Please.
At least Kerry is being honest with the American people.
At least Kerry is being honest with the American people.
You have to have a position to be honest, unless praktike you actually think Kerry is going to get European troops in Iraq.
It’s to the rest of the world’s advantage that there be stability in Iraq – whether that includes democracy is no longer an American option it is now an Iraqi option.
If the rest of the world has little confidence that the current administration is willing to actually listen to their professional military planners instead of the ivory tower policy dreamers ie Wolfowitz; Rumsfeld et.al. – why would they agree to put their soldiers under our operational control?
It seems to me we, under any administration, are not going to give up operational control so we must have credibility that we won’t unnecessarily put their troops in harm’s way to prove some point about “if this goes exactly as planned and the Iraqis do exactly as we want them to then this shouldn’t be a problem” type of academic exercise.
I don’t think this administration has the earned the credibility to get other countries to disregard our recent track record.
In fact I think they’ve squandered what credibility they did have.
Sometimes the CEO of a corporation has to step down even if the problem is only one of perception.
I believe Bush’s problems are more than just perception but in the real world of business (where this administration claims they get their attitude) a CEO would be removed or step down if they’ve lost the confidence of the shareholders.
Americans and our allies have vested interest just as shareholders do.
Time to step aside and let new leadership give it a try.
Lawrence Pintak notes:
The latest survey results out of the Middle East show that America’s favorability rating is now, essentially, zero. That’s down from as high as 75 percent in some Muslim countries just four years ago.
Al-Ahram explains further:
In the first poll, which surveyed six Arab nations and was commissioned by the Washington-based Arab American Institute (AAI), the overall approval ratings of the US ranged between an unprecedented low of two per cent in Egypt and a high of 20 per cent in Lebanon. Those holding a favourable view of the US in Saudi Arabia were four per cent, 11 per cent in Morocco, 14 per cent in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and 15 per cent in Jordan. That marked a relatively sharp decline compared to a similar poll held by AAI two years ago, and indicated that the main reason behind the fall was the policies of the present US administration led by the George W Bush.
the above is cut and pasted from Juan Cole
“It’s to the rest of the world’s advantage that there be stability in Iraq”
Yup, and the rest of the world won’t care if it is Saddam.
But wait I just got suckered. None of that speaks to the fact that Kerry is pushing a withdrawal. The choice isn’t between Bush and a presidential candidate who wants to do Iraq right. The choice is between Bush and Kerry–who is treating leaving Iraq as a goal instead of a side effect of good policy.
carsick, I’m curious as to why they didn’t poll in Iraq, it couldn’t be people like this.
Just wondering
[via WindsofChange]
The choice is between a man who understands the importance of a democratic Iraq and a man who doesn’t.
Gee, Timmy. Your scientific survey of Abbas is conclusive. Sadly, the margin of error is high given the small sample size.
The choice is between a man who will cater his Iraq strategy to the polls and a man who will cater his Iraq strategy to the polls.
Sebastian
When you say, “The choice is between Bush and Kerry–who is treating leaving Iraq as a goal instead of a side effect of good policy.”
You realize you are just making that up don’t you?
Leaving Iraq is “a” goal. Is it possible to have more than one goal and that multiple goals don’t necessarily compete with each other?
The answer is yes.
Timmy
First of all you are making the same mistake as the administration: The terrorists did not come from Iraq. Though they are flocking to the region now.
Get a poll for god’s sakes. I would hope many Iraqi’s would be grateful they are liberated from under Saddam. Let’s see a poll about how they feel about us now.
Anecdotes don’t do nuthin’ for me man.
June 15 – The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
Timmy
More encouraging numbers can be found here but they don’t address similar questions.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
“Leaving Iraq is “a” goal. Is it possible to have more than one goal and that multiple goals don’t necessarily compete with each other?
The answer is yes.”
Surely. But is it not important which goal you focus on? Kerry is focusing on the lower priority goal.
I hope sidecar understands
Sebastian
I didn’t hear Kerry say it was his highest priority. Did you? I thought Kerry was answering a specific question. Maybe not. Show me.
Timmy
Are non sequitors the main course or just dessert.
Considering that this thread is concerning what I think is Sebastian’s reading too much into a Kerry comment, is your odd quote to say that Kerry is promoting “evenhandedness” somehow and is therefore an ally of “evil”?
Or are you saying that my countering your anecdotal evidence of Iraqi’s changing view of America is evidence of my evenhandedness and therefore I am an ally of evil?
Timmy
A third option: Or are you just resorting to the “If yer not fer us yer agin’ us” way of thinking?
Given your comments on terrorists and on a timely exit, just a reminder of the overall perspective of this exercise.
At least Kerry is being honest with the American people.
So not revealing his plan for troop reductions is honest? By playing coy, he’s trying avoid debate altogether. It doesn’t wash, and it’s bad politics.
It shouldn’t wash. It remains to be seen if it is good politics.
Frankly, it’s time for us to start looking at Iraq like grown-ups would. We can’t keep Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan (no, they are not the good guys) in check while leaving the bulk of our forces stewing in a mistake. So if Kerry’s Iraq plan calls for rapid stabilization and pull-out, yeah, I’m all for that.
‘Cause let’s get real, ladies and gents: Iraq is NOT going to be the Happy Dandy Land of Candy promised in those pre-war Bush addresses. There isn’t going to be any Iraqi Freedom, at least not freedom in the way we think of it. The way the current war is breaking down, we have a former Ba’athist assassin allied with a group of Iranian-supported Shiite clerics against a cluster of viciously anti-American Sunni extremists. Both have terrorists, guerillas, and murderers on their side right now. If you think there’s any chance that a Western-style democracy is coming out of this mess, I’ll take a hit of what you’re smoking, because I could use it right about now.
birddog
Just as I pointed out to Sebastian. It appears you’re making stuff up.
“So not revealing his plan for troop reductions is honest?”
So now Kerry’s “plan” is troop reductions?
He was asked a direct question.
“Asked how long it would take him to bring troops home, Kerry said he would consider his approach “an unsuccessful policy if I hadn’t brought significant numbers of troops back home within the first term.”
If his policy is to reduce troops in Iraq it would be near impossible for him to fail to reach such a simple goal. He’s saying if his policy and approach are successful, then troops will be coming home. Not all the troops – a significant number.
A bit of an if/then statement isn’t it?
When you make stuff up it’s easy to whip you and your friends into a tizzy but it’s still made up.
I know it’s tempting to make up arguments so you can easily win them but we have serious issues to address this year. There’s more than enough real stuff. We don’t need the made-up stuff clogging the works.
How many is a significant number? And how does that compare with the current plan?
There is no defined current plan from the Bush administration.
As far as what is the definition of ‘significant numbers’ – who knows. It probably will be defined by the reality on the ground as opposed to a hard figure. At least that would be the prudent way to go about it don’t you think?
I believe it was the current administration that decided on a hard target date for handing over “soveriegnty” without a plan for governance in place. When’s the last time you heard the administration talking about real plans for democracy in Iraq. Been awhile.
Hard targets give the enemy many options for action plans. Not a good thing don’t you think?
Oh good heavens. Of course if the focus of his policy is to get troops home he can be successful in doing that. Bush could do that now.
The question is about whether that is a good focus. It isn’t.
And you reply is pretty much that Kerry gave an evasive answer. I think you are wrong, but even if you are right it isn’t encouraging.
So the next time Kerry is asked by the media “How long will it take to bring troops home?”
Do you suggest he say “I’m not going to answer that question” or do you suggest “As long as it takes”.
Neither of which answer the question.
Obviously you don’t think answering the question by stating that your approach is focusing on a stabilized Iraq within four years and therefore troops will be able to come home.
Ridiculous
Getting troops home isn’t a good focus? Tell that to the families of the reservists.
OT – Slart, wanted to ask you offline to comment about the report in Jane’s that NK has a sea-based ballistic missile system – but your handle points to your somewhat cryptic blog…
pre-9 AM on the West Coast…
dammit – debold works in preview
By the way Slarti
Just a reminder from earlier in the thread in case you missed it.
“Tommy Franks is quoted in this article (Chicago Sun Times) today as saying that “the U.S. will have to maintain substantial numbers of troops in Iraq for three to five years.”
Seen the quote, carsick. Just wondering where you think the problem is.
rilkefan, I’ll get back to you on the Jane’s article.
Ok, scanned through the article. I’ll post what I think on my somewhat cryptic blog :].
“Somewhat cryptic” means, I’d guess, that there’s no posts. It’s because I haven’t posted in a while.
By “cryptic” I meant both “not updated” and “no email address” and “picture of a child with a book on her face?” Anyway, thanks.
I’ve posted what observations I have, but it’s not all that earth-shaking.
picture of a child with a book on her face
See if you can make out the book title…there’s meaning there.
Sebastian: And you reply is pretty much that Kerry gave an evasive answer. I think you are wrong, but even if you are right it isn’t encouraging.
Given that this was the framework…
“Asked how long it would take him to bring troops home, Kerry said he would consider his approach “an unsuccessful policy if I hadn’t brought significant numbers of troops back home within the first term.”
…what do you think the appropriate/’correct’ response should have been?
The correct response? Or the response Kerry was trying to convey?
If Kerry had communicated what his goals are in Iraq his correct response would be along the lines of: “We are trying to do X, Y, and Z. I think that we can do that in the next 3 years, at which time there can be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq.”
The whole problem is that he is framing the goal as troop removal, so he can’t really do that. He just makes vague assertions like “get the job done and bring our troops home…” without defining the job.
By declining to define ‘the job’ and instead focusing on ‘bring the troops home’, Kerry makes it appear that his focus is on ‘bringing the troops home’ rather than ‘getting the job done’. And that focus worries me.
Hmmm. ‘If’ statements need a ‘then’. The sentence “If Kerry had communicated what his goals are in Iraq…” should be concluded with “then I would be less concerned.”
“The whole problem is that he is framing the goal as troop removal…”
Really? I thought he was answering someone’s question about troop removal.
Has the president given you sufficient information or are you just looking at Kerry?
I think you and I can agree that we’ve pretty much exhausted ourselves on this difference of opinion.
One last thing from the article you site:
“In sketching his Iraq plans on CNN’s “Late Edition,” Kerry said, “I’m not going to lay out my whole plan here. I need to be able to negotiate as a president.”
He later added: “I am not going to go into numbers, that’s just not the way to do this. As president, I have enormous leverage and tools available to me that this president has never used properly.”
“The whole problem is that he is framing the goal as troop removal”
Come on, Sebastian. That was the question. He is using the ability to remove troops as a measure of his policy’s success (what policy, you ask? fair question), clearly not as a goal in and of itself. As a barometer.
This is absurdly obvious. Your arguments are stronger if you don’t pick nits.
As barometers go, it’s not all that useful a gauge. Sans other metrics, Kerry could just pull all troops out in a couple of months.
Ugh. This is absurd. If he just wanted to pull the troops out in a couple of months, he’d just say that, wouldn’t he? Instead he indicated that the ability to pull them back in a few years would be a sign of the success of his policies.
This is my last on this. I think you’re being ridiculous. It’s a perfectly reasonable and perfectly rational statement by Kerry, and it is not exclusive with the will to win, the commitment to completion, or anything else.
a perfectly reasonable and perfectly rational
And utterly meaningless…
“and it is not exclusive with the will to win, the commitment to completion, or anything else.”
And I never said otherwise. The fact that he is willing to talk about troop removal and about almost no other aspect of his plans is SUGGESTIVE. It is suggests either that he has no plan, that his plan is weak and if exposed would be obviously weak, or that his plan does not in fact lead to the removal of troops.
“He is using the ability to remove troops as a measure of his policy’s success (what policy, you ask? fair question), clearly not as a goal in and of itself.”
No that isn’t clear. That would be clear if you had outlined a policy already. Then he could talk about troop removal as a barometer of success for his policies. He hasn’t outlined a policy. We have almost zero ideas regarding what he wants in a Middle East policy. He wants international help, but we don’t know what he wants help with . He will withdraw troops when they are done with their job, but he doesn’t tell us what he thinks the job is. He certainly has had opportunities to tell us, but he refuses to take them. He pointedly refuses to take them, see the quote you provide.
And that lends an impression that the thing he is willing to talk about is his actual goal. Is that so hard to understand?
And if I’m picking nits it is because I am talking about the only bit of foriegn policy that Kerry is willing to be even pseudo-concrete about. Everything else is even more ephemeral than this.
And that very problem is what troubles me.
And utterly meaningless…
Unlike “staying the course”?
He certainly has had opportunities to tell us, but he refuses to take them. He pointedly refuses to take them, see the quote you provide.
Then, if you would, please respond to the following question (as a presidential candidate ex hypotheso):
“How long will it take you to bring the troops home?”
[My ‘correct’ response would be, to this as almost everything other question from reporters, “Damn, that’s a stupid question.” But in today’s wacky world o’ politics, I don’t think that’s a legitimate answer.]
You have to have a position to be honest, unless praktike you actually think Kerry is going to get European troops in Iraq.
I think Kerry will try to get more European troops into Iraq. I also agree with a recent George Will column in which he suggests that the first challenge to a Kerry presidency will be how he reacts to his failure to achieve it.
“Leaving Iraq is “a” goal.
Leaving Iraq is not an objective. It is a strategy. Just as a free and democratic Iraq is a strategy. The question that needs to be examined seriously is whether leaving Iraq furthers or hampers our objectives in the region.
Unlike “staying the course”?
Yes. Unlike lots of other things, too, but certainly unlike that.
Sebastian
Please place Bush’s name into your above post and tell me where he answers the questions you are asking of Kerry.
Dave Shuler seems to imply that keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq permanently may be to our benefit. Bush doesn’t say that. But he also hasn’t defined – to the specifity you are requesting of Kerry – just what his plan is.
Here’s Cheney recently trying to answer the question
“We don’t want to leave too soon and leave a mess behind. We don’t want to stay a day longer than necessary. But our success there will depend directly upon getting the Iraqis themselves into the fight, and we’re making significant progress, as well, there too.”
Not very specific if judged by your criteria.
Cheney also says this though,
“But bottom line is getting the Iraqis to take over the political and security responsibilities for their own country and leave behind the kind of government that will never again be a safe-haven for terrorists, won’t produce somebody who is devoted to weapons of mass destruction.”
Gee, no mention of democracy in that bottom line is there?
Dave Shuler seems to imply that keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq permanently may be to our benefit
Not a bit. Since I’ve always been skeptical of the war in Iraq, I don’t feel any particular need to defend it. But I do believe that our strategies should advance our objectives. That’s fundamental. And that the strategy may need to be sold to the American people.
The Bush Administration has not given me a warm fuzzy feeling about either the strategies employed in furthering the objectives or selling the strategy. Yes, yes, I understand how great a free, liberal democracy would be in an Arab country in the Middle East. Does failing to achieve that further the objectives, too?
Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry doesn’t make me feel a great deal better. What would his objectives be in the WoT? The strategies he advocates in achieving the objectives? He does have a plan, but, apparently, he’s not talking about it.
from USAToday about a month ago.
“…The United States set a June 30 deadline for transferring power in Baghdad and beat its own deadline by two days. Other signs of an exit, such as timelines for drawing down U.S. forces, are not yet evident, said Cato Institute analyst Christopher Preble.
“You can’t have an exit strategy without that,” Preble said. “It is essential that the Bush administration go public with such a plan, so that the Iraqi government can take prudent measures to prepare for their own defense.”
On the day of transfer, Bush said the United States and Iraq were “moving forward on every element of our five-part plan” for Iraqi self-rule. He committed the United States to being there for the Iraqis, hunting down insurgents and protecting the country’s infrastructure as Iraq’s new leaders prepare for elections.
Still, the president said, “The struggle is, first and foremost, an Iraqi struggle.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-10-bush-exit-strategy_x.htm
Yes. Unlike lots of other things, too, but certainly unlike that.
How so?
I thought you hated the Bush idea of reforming the Middle East? Will you now claim that it doesn’t exist?
Elements of Bush’s Plan (in no particular order):
1. Attempt to engage in long-term draining of the swamp by encouraging democratic regimes and confronting oppressive regimes, with force if necessary. (And a much more expansive view of ‘necessary’ than many Democrats).
2. Dispel the dangerous notion that the US has a glass jaw–that it will run away when challenged.
3. Bring a strong, democratic, and free Iraq into existance by standing by it while it fights for its survival, by confronting Iran as Iran attempts to destabilize Iraq, by killing terrorists and insurgents both, by helping create a better infrastructure, and since Europe won’t help we will do it without them.
4. Force states to choose sides in the war on terrorism instead of allowing them to play both sides against each other. (With us or against us)
5. Take action with the focus that time is not on our side in direct distinction to the ‘wait until our allies all agree’ approach of Kerry.
6. Fight Middle East terrorism in their homes instead of ours.
You can argue that his plans are ill-conceived or poorly implemented if you like. But we do have some idea of what it is.
Kerry’s plan so far as it is fleshed out is:
1. Get allies to agree to help us do something.
2. Withdraw troops quickly from Iraq.
He specifically has not committed to a democratic Iraq, he specifically has not given the slightest clue about what he is going to do about Islamism, he specifically has not shown that he intends to deal with the problem as if it were bigger than just Al-Qaeda, he specifically has expressed an interest in focusing on defense, he specifically has suggested that he will respond to attacks rather than preempting them. It is true that Bush’s goals have been communicated over time by his administration while Kerry has had no such administration. But he is a Presidential challenger who has made many political speeches of late. It would be nice if I could find out what his goals are.
Elements of Bush’s Plan
To riff off something Dave Shuler mentioned above, those (specifically 1, 3, 4 and 6) aren’t exactly “plans” for reform in any coherent sense — they’re hoped-for strategic outcomes, at best. In fact, let me revisit something I’ve riffed on previously: for these to qualify as a “plan” there has to be some meaningful coherent strategic connection between the present state and the desired state, and that’s where Bush has (for me, at least), always faltered.
That’s not to fault the audacity, or beauty, of his vision. I wish to God that everything he’s spoken of comes to pass. But what I’ve seen from Bush is a bunch of beautiful, flowery rhetoric of what will ultimately come to pass, and very little in the way of tangible nuts-and-bolts realistic progressions, the basic requirement of something to be called a “plan”.
Or, to steal from the inimitable Messrs Parker and Stone:
—
[In the gnome’s cave]
Gnome 1: This is where all our work is done.
Kyle: So what are you gonna do with all these underpants you steal?
Gnome 1: Collecting underpants is just phase one. Phase one: collect underpants.
Kyle: So what’s phase two?
[Silence]
Gnome 1: Hey, what’s phase two?!
Gnome 2: Phase one: we collect underpants.
Gnome 1: Ya, ya, ya. But what about phase two?
[Silence]
Gnome 2: Well, phase three is profit. Get it?
Stan: I don’t get it.
Gnome 2: (Goes over to a chart on the wall) You see, Phase one: collect underpants, phase two-
[Silence]
Gnome 2: Phase three: profit.
Cartman: Oh I get it.
Stan: No you don’t, fat-ass.
Kyle: Do you guys know anything about corporations?
Gnome 2: You bet we do.
Gnome 1: Us gnomes are geniuses at corporations.
Sebastian
Get real. Your Bush guidelines barely address Iraq at all. And they certainly aren’t a strategy for a self sustaining Iraq with the accompanying American troop withdrawal.
Drain the swamp! Geesh, where do you get this stuff?
My guess is Kerry could come out and say, “My first job is to stop George Bush from BUILDING swamps. My second job will be to clean up the one he’s already built.” and people would understand him completely. Not you of course but a vast majority.
Hmmm…give me two statements that have practically nothing in common (aside from that they’re in the same language, approximately), tell me that they’re unlike, and I agree. Then ask me what I meant by that. Are we in the same musical, even?
Hmmm…give me two statements that have practically nothing in common…
They’re both rhetorical flourishes by major American political figures (indeed, by the President and by his Presidential opponenent) concerning American troop deployments in Iraq and, more specifically, their return or non-return from Iraq. They’ve both been considered vacuous rhetorical flourishes by various people, including at least three or four participants in this discussion, as being ungrounded in the plans (or “desired strategic outcomes” or “visions” or whatever) of their utterers — and it was that latter that I was interested in. I’m not sure how much more of a map I can draw you.
…tell me that they’re unlike…
Actually, I didn’t. I queried whether you felt they were unlike. Hence the question mark.
…and I agree.
Inasmuch as it was a question, agreement is somewhat moot — but I’ll let this one slide.
Then ask me what I meant by that.
Yes. You’re claiming that Kerry’s statement was “utterly meaningless”, but that Bush’s “stay the course” remark was not. [At least, I think that’s what you meant. Your response wasn’t entirely clear on that point.] I’d like to know upon what the distinction turns, given their extensive similarities (see above).
Are we in the same musical, even?
Beats me. I’m beginning to think we’re all starring in a nationwide performance of Follies (only without the humor or production values) but somehow I don’t think that’s the answer you’re looking for.
but that Bush’s “stay the course” remark was not.
Alas, you read much more into what I say than I said to begin with. P’raps that evens us up a bit.
Sidereal, 3:07pm: It’s a perfectly reasonable and perfectly rational statement by Kerry…
Slartibartfast, 3:13pm: And utterly meaningless…
Anarch, 3:45pm: Unlike “staying the course”?
Slartibartfast, 4:01pm: Yes. Unlike lots of other things, too, but certainly unlike that.
In what sense is that not asserting “Kerry’s statement was ‘utterly meaningless’, but that Bush’s ‘stay the course’ remark was not.”? That seems to be an apt summation of your comments on this topic.
In what sense is that not asserting “Kerry’s statement was ‘utterly meaningless’, but that Bush’s ‘stay the course’ remark was not.”?
Again, you’re reading things into my comments that really aren’t there.
Again, you’re reading things into my comments that really aren’t there.
I hate to break out the “plain English” motif, because it’s generally inaccurate and invariably lame, but what the heck? You said a) that Kerry’s remark was utterly meaningless, and b) that it was unlike Bush’s remark. I presume that you’re trying to shift gears by claiming that Bush’s remark was generically unlike Kerry’s, except that c) I specifically cited your “meaningless” comment in the “unlike” contradistinction (3:45pm) — a framework which you have yet to alter.
Or, to put it another way: whether you intended it or not, they really are there.
But rather than swatting at shadows (and generally ratcheting up the level of unpleasantness; sorry about that), would you mind elaborating on what it was you actually meant?
Anarch, I don’t see much utility in comparing a commitment to achieving a deliberately vague goal to a reaffirmation of intent. The two are unlike each other so much that I’m going to decline to elaborate exactly what I meant by my remarks. If you’re not content to leave it at that, fine.
As the president says “Intent is not action” actually I think he said “Intent is not actions” but I’m cleaning it up a bit to sound a little better.
This little news item from concerning our ‘Staying the Course’:
“After months of rumors that Afghan President Hamid Karzai was courting former Taliban officials, he confirmed it, saying giving them legitimacy would help bring normalcy to war-torn Afghanistan.”
“But according to Muzhda who is helping the negotiations, some Taliban have conditions. They say they won’t join the government unless Karzai cracks down more on moral corruption and becomes more rigorous in promoting Islamic values.”
The Taliban is setting the conditions? WTF!
Anarch, I don’t see much utility in comparing a commitment to achieving a deliberately vague goal to a reaffirmation of intent…
…or, perhaps, a reaffirmation of intent towards a well-defined goal but via deliberately vague means. As suggested by my remarks on “visions” v. “plans”, these strike me as roughly equivalent; and that, ultimately, was the crux of my query.
The two are unlike each other so much that I’m going to decline to elaborate exactly what I meant by my remarks.
I’d never dream of abrograting your right to withdraw from the conversation.