US House votes not to set timetable for withdrawl

[Pangloss]

Good for them. I don't think the portrayal of withdrawl-advocates as "cut and runners" is fair, but I still think it's a bad tactical move to set a timetable, and setting a timetable has always been more about politics than realities anyway, so it's just a bad idea.

 

If you want to see how your congresscritter voted, this article has a list of each vote, broken down by state. My critter voted for the resolution.

 

I guess the down side of this story is that the House spent 13 hours debating a non-binding resolution instead of getting on with the business of government. There's something to be said for that, but I think this was the right thing to do.

[Jim]

Good for them. I don't think the portrayal of withdrawl-advocates as "cut and runners" is fair' date=' but I still think it's a bad tactical move to set a timetable, and setting a timetable has always been more about politics than realities anyway, so it's just a bad idea.

 

If you want to see how your congresscritter voted, this article has a list of each vote, broken down by state. My critter voted for the resolution.

 

I guess the down side of this story is that the House spent 13 hours debating a non-binding resolution instead of getting on with the business of government. There's something to be said for that, but I think this was the right thing to do.

 

I don't like the label "cut and runners" either. Reasonable minds can differ on this war, something many of the left forget.

 

OTOH, setting a timetable would do nothing except reinforce enemy morale.

[budullewraagh]

the worst part is the whole "support our troops or support bin laden" thing

[padren]

I don't agree with a fixed timetable set in stone, but I think it is a great disservice to the troops to not hold our military leaders and the administration to the effectiveness of their planning. Failing to meet the deadlines wouldn't be a reason to cut and run - it would be a reason to shake up the leadership, perhaps up to the top of this administration if nessesary.

 

I think it is horrible that while we have measures for how long a drive in attendant can take when serving food at a fast-food joint, we have no such measures in place to evaluate those sending our soldiers into the field to put their lives on the line.

 

We owe it to the troops to hold those sending them into battle to know what the heck they are doing and tighten up their stragedies or face replacement by those who can better serve the troops.

[Skye]

It's a shame that a lack of a strategy is being voted on. It's not as though there hasn't been a strategy up to this point. There's been a phased handover of power to the Iraqis. This has happened regardless of what's been happening on the ground for the very sake of keeping up progress. By the same logic this should continue.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think anyone at this point doesn't realize that the leadership's plan for Iraq was avoidably ill-informed and has accordingly gone horribly awry. So if it's accountability you're looking for, that's up to the voters. Bush's ridiculous approval ratings are more the result of Iraq than anything else.

[Saryctos]

I really don't think that congress should be involved in the strategy of military actions.

[Jim]

I don't think anyone at this point doesn't realize that the leadership's plan for Iraq was avoidably ill-informed and has accordingly gone horribly awry. So if it's accountability you're looking for, that's up to the voters. Bush's ridiculous approval ratings are more the result of Iraq than anything else.

 

I actually think that Bush's problem stem from a long tradition of democracies' unreasonable expectations of its leaders in times of military action. This is a tradition which ultimately yields superior results even as it victimizes its own leaders.

 

Military actions are always FUBAR and its silly to expect anything less. Lincoln, for a time, was an idiot to most of the North. Robert E. Lee was a military genius yet he still sent Pickett on his charge. We can all be thankful that Lee did not adopt Sherman's tactics while invading the North.

 

The ultimate judgment of history will depend on the result, not the process. Most of the pontificating in the press is just so much noise and Bush, at least, understands that ultimately it is performance that counts.

[Pangloss]

I actually think that Bush's problem stem from a long tradition of democracies' unreasonable expectations of its leaders in times of military action. This is a tradition which ultimately yields superior results even as it victimizes its own leaders.

 

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor Joseph Nye puts it well in his 2002 book "The Paradox of American Power":

 

Postindustrial societies are focused on welfare rather than glory' date=' and they loathe high casualties except when survival is at stake. This does not mean that they will not use force, even when casualties are expected -- witness the 1991 Gulf War or Afghanistan today. But the absence of a warrior ethic in modern democracies means that the use of force requires an elaborate moral justification to ensure popular support (except in cases where survival is at stake). [/quote']

 

He has an interesting bit of analysis right after that which seems relevent:

 

Roughly speaking, there are three types of countries in the world today: poor, weak preindustrial states, which are often the chaotic remnants of collapsed empires; modernizing industrial states such as India or China; and the postindustrial societies that prevail in Europe, North America, and Japan. The use of force is common in the first type of country, still accepted in the second, but less tolerated in the third.

 

Anyway, it's a familiar point, but I think Nye makes it well. Our willingness to fight seems to be pretty hard to maintain. We've probably had a quarter of a million armed men pass through Iraq since 2003, and 2,500 deaths, which means we're having trouble stomaching a 1% death rate. That's a pretty tiny death rate, as far as warfare goes.

[bascule]

OTOH, setting a timetable would do nothing except reinforce enemy morale.

 

I agree only because I have the sneaking suspicion that if one were set, it wouldn't be followed.

[padren]

Pangloss, I think that is a fair breakdown of nation's views on war, but keep in mind that the first two types are actually much closer to the "survival at stake" level than postindustrial nations, so you could say all three are "survival at stake" fighters.

 

The only two reasons I think people want to fight is either their own survival is threatened, or the survival of others they empathize with and feel they can help by contributing. Keep in mind, leaders may have other reasons for war, but they do not fight - they just send off others to do so.

 

So its not the post industrial nations loose their warrior ethic, it is just the warrior ethic applies to threats, and they don't feel nearly as threatened.

 

 

Other than our survival and the survival of our allies, what is a good justification for a 1% casualty rate in our armed forces?

[Saryctos]

Other than our survival and the survival of our allies, what is a good justification for a 1% casualty rate in our armed forces?

The better question would be, what was the justification of those who killed 1% of the armed forces for doing so? As being a soldier does not necesitate* being killed. Just like in fluid dynamics it is not flow that creates pressure but the resistance to it.

[GutZ]

I still don't understand what the goals are for this war. I think the UN needs to step up and start getting this resolved by getting a bunch of nations and collaborating on the effort to end this.

 

You can't set a timetable, I understand that. But with no direction AND no Timetable, I can understand why people question, or are cynical towards certain aspects of this "war" *cough*Invasion*cough* . You can't just leave either...difficult decision, you DON'T want to leave and have everything the same as it was before because then it was a waste of time and human life.

 

I am usually against wars and guns btw. If it were strict hand to hand combat I might think differently.

[KLB]

I just wish people would see this vote for what it was a meaningless political stunt to distract attention and score a few points for this fall's elections. It means nothing, it does nothing, it is non-binding.

 

I wish voter's would wake up and punish politicians who pander using cheap do nothing political stunts like this. The marriage amendment falls into the same lines. Instead of spending time writing and passing legislation that could make people's lives better and actually solve problems, politicians waste time on things that mean nothing and do nothing.

[KLB]

Accidental double post. Sorry

[Sisyphus]

I actually think that Bush's problem stem from a long tradition of democracies' unreasonable expectations of its leaders in times of military action. This is a tradition which ultimately yields superior results even as it victimizes its own leaders.

 

Military actions are always FUBAR and its silly to expect anything less. Lincoln' date=' for a time, was an idiot to most of the North. Robert E. Lee was a military genius yet he still sent Pickett on his charge. We can all be thankful that Lee did not adopt Sherman's tactics while invading the North.

 

The ultimate judgment of history will depend on the result, not the process. Most of the pontificating in the press is just so much noise and Bush, at least, understands that ultimately it is performance that counts.[/quote']

 

Did Lincoln assume federal troops would be welcomed with open arms? Did he get most of his intelligence from war profiteers? Did he refuse to listen to anyone who disagreed with his coven? Yes, Americans in particular have unrealistic expectations in war, but come on. That's not what's going on here.

[bascule]

The war in Iraq is unsustainable. Something has to be done. What's a viable alternative to a timetable to getting us out of an unsustainable situation?

[Pangloss]

That's quite a definitive conclusion for someone who's information comes from general media reporting. So confident are you in your assessment that you're even willing to pose serious questions with major consequences based on the premise that you're correct.

 

Must be nice. Good luck with that.

[KLB]

My feeling is that a timetable may be important for planning purposes, but that it should not be shared with the world. I do not like this war, I think we were lead to war under false pretenses, I think the current administration has been lying to us throughout the entire war and I think we need an exit strategy. I also believe, however, that publicizing our exit strategy and time table could do more harm than good.

 

The house vote was also wrong because it was done as a political stunt to create campaign fodder for this fall's election. It was not about creating a sound policy in regards to the Iraq war.

[bascule]

That's quite a definitive conclusion for someone who's information comes from general media reporting.

 

Ad hominem

 

So confident are you in your assessment that you're even willing to pose serious questions with major consequences based on the premise that you're correct.

 

So I take it you disagree that the war in Iraq is unsustainable

[Pangloss]

What difference does it make what I think? You believe the matter to be settled, or did I read you wrong?

[KLB]

So I take it you disagree that the war in Iraq is unsustainable

I did not read that into his post. Pangloss MAY simply be indicating that he does not feel that we have enough information to pass judgement.

 

I personally DON'T like the fact that we went to war under false pretenses. I also don't like the way war has been handled (e.g. not overwheming forces to inforce a peace). I would not, however, advocate walking out of Iraq tomorrow, nor would I advocate a publically announced timeline for withdrawl. I would hope that there was such a plan in place and that this administration had a clear plan to get us out of there as soon as possible, but I would not want it publicized. There is no sense letting the insurgents know they only need to lay low for awhile until we are out of there.

 

--edit--

Fixed an editing error and added the word DON'T

[Saryctos]

exit strategy

The armed forces can leave at the drop of a hat. I wish this terminology was never introduced into the mainstream as it is a worthless excuse for a 'point' that people like to make and point at Iraq as though we cannot just leave and require a strategy for doing so. Instead of making an exit strategy, focussing on what it takes for the success of the operations should be the main focus.

 

The war in Iraq for the most part is over. What we have now is symptomatic of a peace keeping/humanitarian mission. Rebuilding Iraq while attempting to maintain stability is the key. The armed forces are done looking for fights, the fights come to them while they attempt to aide the establishment of Iraqi infrastructure.

 

 

A viable alternative to a timetable? Something useful...Time means nothing in this situation. What we need are some guidlines for measuring progress. Rather than set an arbitrary date, it would seem that the situation warrents an assessment of what elements of the Iraqi police force are required before they can maintain stability unto themselves. Once we have an idea of what it takes for those elements to be errected we will have an opening for withdrawl. However, the advantages of keeping the american forces there to assist the Iraqis makes the turn-around time for the transfer of power all the easier. The longer the troops are there, the faster the Iraqi forces can maintain stability on their own. Leaving would stand to stunt the growth of the newborn Iraqi police forces and would make for a much longer time before a peaceful Iraq can exist.

[Saryctos]

I personally like the fact that we went to war under false pretenses. I also don't like the war has been handled (e.g. not overwheming forces to inforce a peace). I would not, however, advocate walking out of Iraq tomorrow, nor would I advocate a publically announced timeline for withdrawl. I would hope that there was such a plan in place and that this administration had a clear plan to get us out of there as soon as possible, but I would not want it publicized. There is no sense letting the insurgents know they only need to lay low for awhile until we are out of there.

Like the "fact" that we went to war under false pretenses? assuming for a moment that it was indeed a "fact", how would that be a good thing?

 

The concept of a plan that isn't publicized, yet you want to know it exists? How can you possibly rationalize that.

[KLB]

Like the "fact" that we went to war under false pretenses? assuming for a moment that it was indeed a "fact", how would that be a good thing?

 

D'oh! Editing error. I should have typed "While I DON'T like". I'll fix that.

 

The concept of a plan that isn't publicized, yet you want to know it exists? How can you possibly rationalize that.

 

I did not say I want to know that it exists. I said that I HOPED it would exist. Don't read what isn't there.