Delator
29-06-2005, 22:52
So, I am personally against a timetable. Obviously telling the terrorists when we are planning to leave will only allow them to have free reign to attack Iraq after we withdraw, and such an occurance would drastically reduce our own political ability to fight terrorism.
BUT...I have just had a thought. I want Bush to lie.
I want him to tell the American people that he has set a timetable for a withdrawl of a majority of U.S. military personel by January of 2008.
This will be the lie.
The U.S. will engage in deceptive efforts to make it appear as though we are getting ready to pull out. In reality, we'll simply be lying in wait. This would be difficult, but if the military leaders get a free hand to plan such an operation, I'm sure we could make it seem like we had all but left the country, aside from any "training forces" we left behind.
When the terrorists make their move, we'll be waiting for them. This would certainly allow us to fight an "offensive" in a defensive manner. Coupled with the increased amount of Iraqi Government forces, and proper defense of likely insurgent targets...it just might break the back of the insurgency.
Now granted, the political fallout from not adhering to a publicly announced timetable of withrdrawl could be significant...but if in can be demonstrated that significant damage had been done to insurgents in Iraq, to the point where it has shortened the amount of time the U.S. actually needs to be in Iraq...then it just might mean good things for the Republicans later that year.
Besides, if it doesn't work, it's not like Bush needs to worry about being reelected anyways.
So...any thoughts?
BUT...I have just had a thought. I want Bush to lie.
I want him to tell the American people that he has set a timetable for a withdrawl of a majority of U.S. military personel by January of 2008.
This will be the lie.
The U.S. will engage in deceptive efforts to make it appear as though we are getting ready to pull out. In reality, we'll simply be lying in wait. This would be difficult, but if the military leaders get a free hand to plan such an operation, I'm sure we could make it seem like we had all but left the country, aside from any "training forces" we left behind.
When the terrorists make their move, we'll be waiting for them. This would certainly allow us to fight an "offensive" in a defensive manner. Coupled with the increased amount of Iraqi Government forces, and proper defense of likely insurgent targets...it just might break the back of the insurgency.
Now granted, the political fallout from not adhering to a publicly announced timetable of withrdrawl could be significant...but if in can be demonstrated that significant damage had been done to insurgents in Iraq, to the point where it has shortened the amount of time the U.S. actually needs to be in Iraq...then it just might mean good things for the Republicans later that year.
Besides, if it doesn't work, it's not like Bush needs to worry about being reelected anyways.
So...any thoughts?