Why is "Timetable" a dirty word?

[Rainsford]

I've been following the whole Iraq War debate a little more closely lately, and I've noticed something I find interesting. Of course you still have the Cindy Sheehan anti-war types, but a growing number of people are calling for a timetable, a plan, for eventually ending the war. I think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that at this point we'd be hurting the Iraqis even more if we just up and left tomorrow, and the war opposition crowd seems to be leaning more towards figuring out how to reach a successful end to the war rather than just getting out as soon as possible. There are still holdouts of course, but this "timetable" crowd seems to be gaining steam. And it makes a lot of sense, the Iraq war is not turning out like we had initially hoped, but leaving without fixing Iraq would be even worse at this point.

But don't try and tell that to some of the folks on the other side. I hesitate to call them "pro-war", but whoever they are, even the suggestion of a plan and a timetable is treated like someone suggested shredding the constitution and electing Osama bin Laden dictator for life. Their ranting varies in both content and volume, but the basic idea is that even the idea of having a plan for victory is totally unacceptable...we might as well surrender tomorrow and go home. This puzzles me, having a plan and a timetable seems to be the only way to make sure we actually accomplish our goal. "Staying until the job is done" is a fine approach, but we still have to actually get the job done at some point. And while some people still have complete faith that we will in fact get the job done, I think we're past the point where you can blame people for maybe wanting a little more detail.

I at least understand the people who want to throw Cindy Sheehan in Gitmo. I may not agree with their view, but at least I understand. They feel strongly about continuing the war, and feel the need to protest those who don't. But the timetable folks have the same goal as the pro-war folks, victory in Iraq. The only difference is that the timetable group thinks that maybe the whole victory process needs a little more detail and planning. Even if the other folks don't agree, the anger of their response seems a little strange. Why is that?

 

[3chordcharlie]

You can't have a timetable until there's some sort of order to the chaos.

In all fairness, any 'timetable' WRT Iraq would be a joke.

The fact that this situation was predicted by those of us who didn't support the war in the first place is irrelevent at this point.

 

[RealPatriot]

The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

I just don't think a comparison between Germany, Japan & Iraq is valid. Germany & Japan were rampaging lunatics hellbent on world domination. Iraq was a soiled infant sitting alone in the middle of a rotting sand box, banging on a plastic bucket with a plastic shovel.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

I just don't think a comparison between Germany, Japan & Iraq is valid. Germany & Japan were rampaging lunatics hellbent on world domination. Iraq was a soiled infant sitting alone in the middle of a rotting sand box, banging on a plastic bucket with a plastic shovel.

Either way, the germans or the japanese did not want us there. And it only took use 60 years for most of our troops to leave germany and soon our troops my leave japan. ...

 

[irwincur]

A time table is simply a date for the enemy to circle on a calandar. Seriously, how hard would it be to simply lay low until the appointed date and then unleash all hell.

This is pretty much what happened in Vietnam. I am sure that is not the only example where a time table backfired. But come on, it really does not take much common sense to see the issus with this concept.

I guess up to this point I gave the left a bit too much credit. Now that they are clamouring for a time table, I know for sure that they are simply looking to lose the war so they can blame the loss on Bush... F*cking sad that they are willing to sell out America simply to win the White House back.

 

[DealMonkey]

Because a timetable implies that we'll be getting our troops outta Iraq sometime before 25 years of occupation. It also implies that there is a plan, or likely to be a plan regarding anything in Iraq or otherwise shift uncomfortably from flying this whole thing by the seat of Dubya's pants.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irwincur
A time table is simply a date for the enemy to circle on a calandar. Seriously, how hard would it be to simply lay low until the appointed date and then unleash all hell.

This is pretty much what happened in Vietnam. I am sure that is not the only example where a time table backfired. But come on, it really does not take much common sense to see the issus with this concept.

I guess up to this point I gave the left a bit too much credit. Now that they are clamouring for a time table, I know for sure that they are simply looking to lose the war so they can blame the loss on Bush... F*cking sad that they are willing to sell out America simply to win the White House back.

Well I guess that explains it...sort of...you guys don't understand the concept. When people say timetable, I don't think they mean just picking some arbitrary date when we pack up and go home. Hasn't anyone ever worked on a development project? A timetable means you figure out a goal and pick a date when you want to have that goal completed. Then you figure out what steps are necessary to reach that goal, and figure out when each of those steps need to be completed to complete the goal in time. And so on. Winning is still defined the same way, it's just a plan with dates, not an arbitrary withdrawl date.

I honestly do not see the issues with this concept. The enemy can't just circle the date on their calendar, because you plan in such a way that if you do the stuff in your plan by that date, they won't be able to unleash a cocktail party. A simple example is setting a timetable and a plan for training Iraqi troops and police to take over duties done by American soldiers. If we make a realistic plan, and stick with it, by the magic date, their will be enough Iraqi troops and police to take care of whatever the insurgents throw at them.

Seriously, for all the bad things about war, it's essentially another "project" to complete. I don't see why the rules for meeting the objectives in war are different from meeting the objectives anywhere else. If you don't have a plan, you're going to lose.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

Why would it be a bad idea to attach dates to those events? Their events that should be at least partially under our control...we're planning on bringing them about some time, right? I'm not suggesting we set unreasonable dates for anything, but working towards a goal "sometime in the future" is different than working towards one that needs to be done September 2006. Forget for a second that we're talking about a war, suppose your boss gave you something that needed to be done. How many of us would still have our job if we told him that we'll have it done "someday" and refuse to give him any sort of completion date?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

Why would it be a bad idea to attach dates to those events? Their events that should be at least partially under our control...we're planning on bringing them about some time, right? I'm not suggesting we set unreasonable dates for anything, but working towards a goal "sometime in the future" is different than working towards one that needs to be done September 2006. Forget for a second that we're talking about a war, suppose your boss gave you something that needed to be done. How many of us would still have our job if we told him that we'll have it done "someday" and refuse to give him any sort of completion date?

What happens if we set a date for withdrawl, and the situation doesn't improve at all? Do we 1) Leave anyway, effectively leaving the country in chaos and giving the country to terrorists or 2) Decide to stay, making the timetable pointless and going back on our plan?

Either option is bad, so IMO, a timetable is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

 

[shira]

I agree that a timetable is stupid. Or to put this another way, the timetable is now.

Just what do the "stay until we win" crowd define "win" to be?

Do you mean an independently stable Iraq, having full freedom of the press, consitutionally-protected rights for citizens (including minorities), an independent judiciary, the rule of law, mature democratic institutions, not Balkanized, existing in a middle-east atmosphere where there's no threat to stability from outside (from Iran, from Syria, from opposition forces in Saudi Arabia)? Do you mean ALL of that? Or something less (and how much less)?

And whatever you define to be the "terminal" point for Iraq - the point at which we can pull out - how valuable is that terminal point? Is it more valuable than ANYTHING else (more than, say, 20,000 dead American soldiers, 100,000 severly injured, and $2 trillion spent on the war effort)?

The reason I ask the question in this way is that you righties define as a "traitor" anyone who wants to pull out. But don't you agree that if a cost/benefit analysis shows that pulling out is worth more than staying, then STAYING is what a traitor would do?

The point I'm getting at is that people seem the think that a "stable, free Iraq" is imperative. Why? Explain the benefit, and why the benefit exceeds the costs the U.S. will incur in trying to bring that benefit about.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

Given FDR was dead before the end of the war probably not!

 

[doody]

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Yeah we should have wasted far more lives than 54,000 for a total joke fusk up "mission".

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

Given FDR was dead before the end of the war probably not!

Exactly. The war in Iraq isn't over, it's inappropriate to start talking about withdrawl and a timetable while we are still fighting.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

Given FDR was dead before the end of the war probably not!

Exactly. The war in Iraq isn't over, it's inappropriate to start talking about withdrawl and a timetable while we are still fighting.

Nice piece of revisionist Iraq War II history there! This is the post-war we are losing because of a lack of planning on the Bush administrations part.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur
A time table is simply a date for the enemy to circle on a calandar. Seriously, how hard would it be to simply lay low until the appointed date and then unleash all hell.

This is pretty much what happened in Vietnam. I am sure that is not the only example where a time table backfired. But come on, it really does not take much common sense to see the issus with this concept.

I guess up to this point I gave the left a bit too much credit. Now that they are clamouring for a time table, I know for sure that they are simply looking to lose the war so they can blame the loss on Bush... F*cking sad that they are willing to sell out America simply to win the White House back.

Well I guess that explains it...sort of...you guys don't understand the concept. When people say timetable, I don't think they mean just picking some arbitrary date when we pack up and go home. Hasn't anyone ever worked on a development project? A timetable means you figure out a goal and pick a date when you want to have that goal completed. Then you figure out what steps are necessary to reach that goal, and figure out when each of those steps need to be completed to complete the goal in time. And so on. Winning is still defined the same way, it's just a plan with dates, not an arbitrary withdrawl date.

I honestly do not see the issues with this concept. The enemy can't just circle the date on their calendar, because you plan in such a way that if you do the stuff in your plan by that date, they won't be able to unleash a cocktail party. A simple example is setting a timetable and a plan for training Iraqi troops and police to take over duties done by American soldiers. If we make a realistic plan, and stick with it, by the magic date, their will be enough Iraqi troops and police to take care of whatever the insurgents throw at them.

Seriously, for all the bad things about war, it's essentially another "project" to complete. I don't see why the rules for meeting the objectives in war are different from meeting the objectives anywhere else. If you don't have a plan, you're going to lose.

Your thinking about it like its a construction project. In such a project would not most people be sane and rational with reasonable expectations?

I see none of these qualities in the insurrgents

 

[GoPackGo]

What we need to do is set a timetable for transistion.

Say Jun 1, 2006 - all police and patrol is done by the Iraqis. However, if they need an airstrike, or the marines sent in to shock and awe an insurgent stronghold, then fine, we can help take care of that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that Rainsford is right. How are you going to get where you need to be....IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHERE AND WHEN YOU NEED TO BE THERE?

A timetable isn't a "set in stone" date. It is a flexible target that helps you actually achieve the goal. You have deadlines and it motivates everyone to actually try to hit them. You have a target date for training the police. A target date for rebuilding different parts of the infrastructure, etc.

The worst thing that you can do, is what we are doing now. As hard as it seems for some to grasp, "staying the course" and "seeing it through" sound nice, but the mean dlck. This administration loves to talk in abstracts because there is no accountability when you do.

What the hell does "see it through" mean? As someone else asked, how do you know when you have? What are the determining factors? If there are defined determining factors....what is wrong with setting a target date to actually accomplishing those items?

 

[imported_Condor]

Timetable = Dayplanner for the terrorists!

 

[judasmachine]

because we might not be pumping out enough oil by the time it expires... duh!

 

[Genx87]

The obvious fear is the terrorists will simply lay low and wait for you to leave. They know the date so just wait us out. I dont mind a timetable if we way put it off to a point Iraq can be stable. But to say trooops need to be home in 12 months is political suicide and suicide for the Iraqi people.

 

[BDawg]

We can't have a timetable! If we set up one, the Republicans would win. They were pushing for a timetable way back when we were in Yugoslavia.

 

[NJDevil]

I think a timetable (a flexible, not set in stone one) like the one Rainsford defined is a good idea. It will force us to work towards achievable goals as opposed to just patrolling the streets. It will organize our effort, and for those who say that it'll be a plan for terrorists, how do you imagine that? Will they stop attacking til that date? or will they know what we're doing and will attack us there?

The whole paradox of our "victory" there is remarkable. We need the country to be secure before we leave, but our presence there is unifying the enemy, giving them a great target. Many of those wouldn't be there if it weren't for American troops. So basically, we need security to leave, but a more secure Iraq will come about when the US is gone ... damn it .