Jophiel wrote:
Given the table of casualties over the past year, what exactly are you basing this on?
As for the "they'll just wait out the timetable" argument, I point you to the thread about today's news article stating that Iraqi leaders are requesting a timetable for American troop withdrawl. Maybe the people we're trusting to run this shining democracy know something we don't? Or are they just too stupid to figure out our brilliance and will require us to be there until we decide it's okay to leave?
I have to disagree on your first point. The determination of winning or losing is not the table of casualties; rather it is whether you are achieving your objectives. The casualties are the cost of achieving those objectives. I believe we are advancing our objectives, and your second point, regarding the Iraqi leaders wanting a timetable as well, is further evidence that these objectives are being achieved; i.e. - a freely elected government exists in Iraq, that continues to be stabile and grow in its ability to govern the country and provide security.
Regarding your second point, I just want to clarify that I am arguing against a timetable based on time alone, rather than on the objective. For example stating we will leave in 6 months regardless of the objectives is wrong imho for the reasons I stated in my prior post. However, stating that the Iraqi security forces will be capable of patrolling the streets and protecting the people in 6 months, enabling us to withdraw troops from that duty is perfectly acceptable. The difference is that the time is qualified on achieving the objective. If events occur that delay the time to achieve the objective by say 3 months then the withdrawal would also be delayed.
Edited, Tue Nov 22 14:14:52 2005 by fhrugby