What's the difference...
between a precipitous withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq that would plunge the region into chaos and ignite a bloody civil war, and the successful completion of a mission to restore stability to Iraq and leave it a free and independent nation?
Obama's dangerous plan of surrendering to al Qaeda:
Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.
Contrast with this responsible method of bringing the Iraqi war to a victorious close:
Two Iraqi officials say the U.S. and Iraq are close to a deal under which all American combat troops would leave by October 2010 with remaining U.S. forces gone about three years later.A U.S. official in Washington acknowledges progress has been made on the timelines for a U.S. departure but offered no firm date. Another U.S. official strongly suggested the 2010 date may be too ambitious.
Lemme see, by October 2010, how does that compare to in 16 months from 20 January 2009?
So one answer to the question appears to be four-five months.
Equal credit is allotted for the alternative and alliterative answer (heh): the political party of the politician proposing the plan.
--
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- brendanm98's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Once Obama became the de facto Democratic nominee and recognized as a serious contender for the Presidency.
His 16 month withdrawal plan which emphasized disengagement over the continued micro managing of every step in Iraq's emergence as a new nation was seized upon by Maliki as a way to break the Bush Administrations stranglehold on the SOFA and future administration of Iraq. Maliki's publicly expressed support for Obama's plan completely changed the previous dynamic, which had held that those advocating withdrawal were un-serious and replaced it with a new dynamic giving Maliki and the Iraqi's significantly more
control over their own destiny and the status of US forces in Iraq.
McCain is now powerless to effect the outcome in this situation and at best he can only hang on for the ride and hope that whatever the Bush Administration manages to negotiate with a newly empowered Maliki might be seen to vindicate his previous positions. The occupation is finally winding down and all the lofty goals of a few months/years ago revised downward. This is George Bush's final gift to McCain.
If Obama helped achieved all this as a mere nominee, what might he achieve as President? McCain, not so much.
[EDIT]
McClatchy has the details of the SOFA capitulation to timetables, specific troop withdrawal dates and US troops/contractors now being subject to Iraqi law.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
)Any rational observer of Iraq sees a civil war is already in progress. The Americans are just one more militia in the landscape. The American presence is a major impediment to resolution of this civil war.
The Obama plan is rational and will bring stability. The McCain plan guarantees the status-quo, and will not bring stability. Our exit from Iraq will remove the impediment of an occupying force from the equation.
India and the Balkans are the concrete examples we should use. The British stayed in India far too long: they only exacerbated an already troubled relationship between the Muslims and Hindus. Partition was largely drawn up by Lord Mountbatten: his idiotic line continues to bedevil both India and Pakistan to this day. In the Balkans, NATO broke the sieges of Sarajevo and Gorazde, the stalemate was broken, and NATO didn't put a boot on Balkan soil for a year, allowing the various parties to fight to exhaustion and a position of compromise. In both India and the Balkans, old maps were torn up and new ones made.
Obama's plan makes sense. We aren't going to leave entirely. We're going to get out of the way and let the Iraqis come to terms on their own. We have other fish to fry. As with the British in India, we have long overstayed our welcome, and our continued presence only makes things worse.
Therefore, the sooner we leave Iraq, the better. Let's not kid ourselves: some people don't like Obama's plan because it's Obama's plan. The simple reality is this: we have made an utter botch of Iraq, the Iraqis then botched what we did not botch, and only Iraqis can fix this mess.
It's not our problem any more. Stop wishing and hoping and dreaming and pining like lovelorn maidens that the Iraqis will forgive us for what we've done. It's time to leave. There comes a time in every botched relationship when it's time for one party to leave, regardless of who was right and who was wrong. It's time, gentlemen. Time to fight the real war on terror, which was never in Iraq. We've been forced to admit we can't change the facts on the ground in Iraq. They do not love us. There is no goddamn happy ending to this story. Get real. And get out.
- Login or register to post comments
)There was a civil war, perhaps. It's pretty clear that al Qaeda ignited sectarian violence in Feb-2006 when they suicide-bombed the Golden Mosque. But civilian deaths have plummeted since last September and, for the last two months, ethno-sectarian killings have been exactly zero. To me, a rational observer would very much dispute your contention that there is a civil war in progress.
As I said earlier, Obama opposed the strategy that helped bring the situation to its favorable present state, and now that the strategy has been working, a 16-month timetable to withdraw all combat brigades is becoming closer to sensible. If the Iraqis want us to leave, then we should leave, but while we're there, it stands to reason that we should do our best to ensure that the gains made do not reverse.
Having them love us or trying to change their hearts and minds is secondary. The most important thing we can do is make it most costly for groups to opt for violence and less costly for them to lay down arms and join the political process.
I also dispute your contention that the real war on terror was never in Iraq. The suicide bombings speak for themselves. Granted, we allowed al Qaeda & Co. to go into Iraq, but they themselves called it (and made it) the central front in their war against us.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )they followed the US to Iraq plain and simple and the Iraqis don't thank us for it.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They continue apace. The relevant numbers are the refugees, which number between two and four millions, some would say as high as five.
This is no favorable present state. It is the Peace of Belfast, with British troops patrolling the streets. Be honest enough to dispense with this fallacy of Favorable Present State. It is a band-aid on a cancer. The civil war is only in abeyance: partially burned down, the Sunnis and Kurds are feverishly arming. Civil order is nil in Kirkuk and Mosul at present moment. Basra is in a bad way. Baghdad is a nightmare, ask any journalist. Everyone with money has already fled away. Favorable State, my ass.
The Iraqis want us to leave. They praised us for overthrowing Saddam, and asked us to leave then. We didn't.
You simply do not grasp how significance of the Hearts and Minds campaign. It is the only goal. The groups soon to be the primary fighters in the coming civil war are being armed and paid by the United States, to wit, the Sons of Iraq. Al Qaeda made the same mistake the US did in Iraq: it attempted to impose a foreign system upon the tribes. Get that through your head, once and for all. We have no business in Iraq, say what you will of the justice of removing Saddam. We are the British in India, only there is no Gandhi. And even Gandhi failed. If you think we will do anything but delay and worsen the civil war to come, you are badly, badly mistaken. This will get worse before it gets better, as it did in the Balkans.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The war was started by a Republican and will be ended by a Democrat. Therefore, the war is good. Everything else is smoke, mirrors, and ponies.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's rather like articles of faith. Others can say "the American presence provides stability", which on its face is true. When our HMMVs and Strykers come rolling into town, the bad guys put their guns back in the holes, take off their masks and grin at us. That's a sort of stability. It only lasts as long as we're there. Which does lend some little credence to "the American presence provides stability". But not enough: the amriki go back to their bases. Even if they stay in town, they will eventually mosey off to some other trouble spot if that spot gets hot enough: e.g. the Surge took troops out of Mosul and put them in Baghdad. Now Mosul is hosed.
Kirkuk's a more interesting problem, because we're not the target. This is a purely internal feud, and we can't stop it. This isn't like say Baghdad, where we are the target. The Kurds are our good buddies. The Arabs are on our payroll. The Kurds were oppressed by the Arabs, but the Kurds oppress their Turkomen. Not an easy one to solve.
No ponies for anyone there, least of all the Iraqis. The pony is a mirage, a very tempting one, because as the first paragraph points out, when the amriki turn up, things get better.
There used to be a vandal on Wikipedia called "Wheels". He'd turn up to change titles to read "[previous title] on Wheels". It was sorta funny, he was a bother, but easily corrected, and some of the stuff was hilarious. But every time I see someone say "...between a precipitous withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq that would plunge the region into chaos and ignite a bloody civil war" or any such, I just want to hack it and add "..for Now" to every sentence they write. There is a long term picture for Iraq, and we're not part of it.
For now, we're there, and as such, part of both the problem. But we're not part of the solution. Alternate scenarios would have featured a draconian crackdown on Iraq, iron fists beating these fractious little heads together and lettin' em all go home crying. Iraq, sad to say, would have loved it. They respect power. They think we're schizophrenic, building with one hand and destroying with the other. They really do.
We're irrelevant in Iraq. That's the plain fact of the matter.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's like two people advocating cutting down a tree, what could be the difference? They both think the tree needs to come down.
Except one has consistently said the tree needs to come down now, and the other says the tree shouldn't be cut down until after the fruit ripens. They wait a season… no fruit. So they repeat the same positions. One demands the tree come down now, the other says the tree can't be cut down until it bears fruit. They wait a season… no fruit. Repeat positions. They wait a season… no fruit. Repeat positions.
Finally, the tree bears fruit. Now, the two magically have the same position.
Yep, no difference at all. Except, that one doesn't give a damn about fruit.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
)Well said. I like the illustration.
I prefer the following, though.
One has always said, and says now, that he won't cut down the tree until after the fruit ripens.
The other clearly indicated in the past -- when it suited his purpose at that time -- that he will definitely cut down the tree at the end of THIS season, but now that it would suit him NOT to be clear about having such a fixed timetable, he is trying to have it both ways. He indicates that he will cut down the tree at the end of this season, and that he expects the tree to bear fruit this season, but he kinda indicates that he would NOT (or might not) cut down the tree if it does NOT bear fruit this season (that he would or might wait another season to see if bears fruit next season).
Some folks then say about the second guy, "He's got the right idea. He's definitely going to cut down the tree at the end of this season".
Others say "He's got the right idea. He is determined to cut down that tree, but he's not going to do so before it bears fruit. And this season should be plenty of time for the tree to bear fruit; that's why he's waiting until the end of this season, and he says he might actually wait a little bit past the end of the official season if the fruit arrives a little later than expected."
Yet others say "He doesn't consider it at all plausible that the tree won't bear fruit this season (or that cutting it down would make it less likely to bear fruit thereafter -- it might make it more likely to bear fruit), so there's no reason for him to even contemplate the scenario in which the tree does NOT bear fruit this season, let alone tell us what he would do in such a scenario" even though it's incredibly unrealistic to think that the tree will almost certainly bear fruit this season, and even though the answer (and the decision in that scenario) is of great importance to the community.
Oh, and some have a combination of the above views about the second guy's position (even with contradictory elements).
And the one thing they can all agree on is that his (the second guy's) position is quite clear.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Damn you Mac, you gave him an opening.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The tree supposedly represents the presence of an occupying force of 100k+ US troops to guarantee security and 'stability', which is assumed will bear as fruit "the strategic goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East".
Except that we are attempting to grow and harvest a cherry tree that will not grow in the environment of Iraq without an artificial greenhouse climate to sustain it. Something that is expensive to provide, is draining our treasury along with worldwide confidence in US horticulture and offers little prospect for a sustainable harvest. The Iraqis moreover, have no love of cherries and would prefer to plant trees more suited to the region, bearing fruit more accommodating to their palate. Obama recognizes this, and has proposed we carefully remove the cherry tree, give up on the project to expand our worldwide cherry orchard holdings and forgo efforts to market a taste for cherries amongst Iraqi's and the wider ME region using Iraq as a base. Instead Obama proposes that we stimulate the Iraqi's own horticultural instincts to grow the kind of produce they would prefer and would be capable of sustaining them, even if not entirely appealing to our supposedly more refined palates. All the while being careful of course, to ensure that they don't grow anything poisonous or illegal.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...you don't get it.
You are only proving the point about it being a waste of time.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I do.
Proof enough in your resort to the usual dismissive gesture intended to forestall further examination of the issue, except by your own necessarily inadequate metaphor.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )[jazz hands]
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )probably your best option at this point and not unexpected.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nice movement.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Neither one of us is going to change the others mind through reasoned argument so why bother? Indeed, there's the added benefit of not having to make the effort to defend positions you perhaps aren't capable of defending, while leaving the impression you could if you wanted to.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )deleted
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )only if you consider that an apple from the store costs $0.79, while the Iraq war will cost around $4 trillion when all is said and done. It continues to cost $10 billion per month. That's some expensive fruit.
Operation Desert Storm cost the US $9 billion. Why. Because much of the cost was shouldered by Saudi Arabia & Kuwait among others.
What's the net benefit, would be the first grower's question. The second's response?
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your example points to the fundamental difference between the two camps on Iraq and why I think most debate has reached a dead end. From my side your example works until the last two sentences. In my example the one guys claims to see the fruit and the other doesn't, but pretends to in other to just cut the tree already.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It isn't going to be a fruitful discussion if one views it too narrowly through "never should have planted the tree" rhetoric.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Come on, no need to play word games with me!
:)
The point is that people like myself simply don't see the fruit, don't see any benefit to the US from our involvement in Iraq. That's why I find the whole discussion of us 'winning' not very useful since I don't see what the US gets out this that in any way justifies the costs.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The point is that people like myself simply don't see the fruit, don't see any benefit to the US from our involvement in Iraq.
We agree, that was my point too.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I get it you disagree but calling my position a 'narrow view' is really not going to advance the debate much.
I think this shows that there is no right or wrong on this, it's all a matter of how much you value the costs and benefits of the war effort. For me, the costs vastly outweigh the benefits, and that's why I oppose it.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I agree completely.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm curious what you see as the benefit of staying in Iraq all these years. As background to my question, it's my assumption that civil wars/wars of succession don't last indefinitely.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a banana.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )a banana skin. Since then it's just been one pratfall after another, which would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and shampoo bottles and AA batteries wired up in series, and Persons of Arab Extraction and a Million Amurkcans on Old Square Head's List of Suspects and suchlike. We just can't be too careful when it comes to things which resemble threats. And alas, bananas are included in the growing list of threats to our precious bodily fluids. Potassium, you know. Which combined with chlorine available from innocent salt shakers and good ol' American oxygen can form potassium chlorate, the very stuff used in primer caps.
Well, rest assured, those scheming bastids who Hate Our Freedoms will stop at nothing, nothing I tell you. A good old Chiquita Banana, from a fine banana republic such as we've been invading and re-invading for the last hundred years or so, can be subverted to Evil Ends. And when held menacingly in front of a stewardess, well, I don't have to tell you where that story ends. It doesn't have a G rating, that's for sure.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Showing your age. They're all gender neutral Flight Attendants these days.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )without a millimeter wave radar stripping me naked. And my shoes stayed on my feet. Back when the country wasn't run by pantywaist paranoid maniacs who can't find Osama bin Ladin but make me take my shoes off and fish around in old ladies' purses and make me turn on my laptop, as if I couldn't wire up the bomb to the F2 key. Hey, can I say "old ladies"?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )regarding the contents of either Jordan or catchy's pants.
Just a data point. Use as you wish.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...all the talk about premature withdrawal.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )n/t
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which tends to poison the entire tree.
NO links to al Qaeda;
NO active nuclear program; and
A media play to convince folks Saddam did the anthrax.
I rather like the theory that Cheney lied to Bush about the anthrax knowing that Bush would then take down Saddam no matter what. Bush probably still believes Saddam was connected to the anthrax mailings.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )your analogy is cute, however i wouldn't even know where to begin in how off base it is in this case. comparing the 5 year and counting slaughter we have brought down to a lovely tree, it's fruit is what, exactly? is it dead bodies, no bid contracts, oil contracts, purple fingers?
well done, anyways. gotta say you are right in line with the prevailing chutzpah on display from the pro war camp from the start.
a *tree*. good lord.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Look over there!"
"It wasn't leaving the tree standing to bear fruit! It was the sun that bore the fruit, or the fertilizer, or the water! None of which had anything to do with leaving the tree standing. See? But it doesn't matter; now that the tree has fruit, bottom line… it's time to cut down the tree. My guy was right all along. He's the one!"
blah blah blah
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )helped make people work harder with the care of the tree for it to have a chance of bearing fruit... Blah Blah Blah ....
:)
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )stories about Saddam and anthrax to drum up public support for the war?
Did Saddam's men actually pluck Kuwait infants from incubators and leave them to die so the medical equipment could be shipped back to Iraq?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"My guy was right all along. He's the one!"
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.
Nice job Mac.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Don't blame me if this:
...comes across that way.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Did "current" take on a new and different meaning while I wasn't paying attention?
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've been resisting asking this, but what do you think IS Obama's current position? Specifically, I mean what is his position vis a vis the central question re: Iraq policy, which is whether we should (1) announce and say we will definitely stick to a fixed timetable for withdrawal (perhaps with brief delays, such as a couple of months, in the interest of achieving/maintaining a given level of stability), (2) say we will withraw only at a pace that would not jeopardize stability, or (3) something in between (and what is that "in between" -- Is the position that there a maximum time he'd delay withdrawals before proceeding anyway even if it would jeopardize stability)?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that his position is (1), as applies to combat troops (exempting the residual force, which I understand to be a few tens of thousands).
OTOH I think he'd also be prepared to increase levels from what they were at the time if he thought genocide was taking place. This isn't the same thing as (2), I can go into detail if you want and I'm not saying it's completely logical on his part, but that's my sense of his stance.
I believe he views US military force as the wrong tool with which to effect political progress, is of the opinion that setting a deadline will motivate more rapid "stepping up" on the part of the Iraqis, and doesn't think we are most efficiently utilizing our manpower in the war on terror by keeping so many brigades in Iraq.
(Edit: IIRC you provided an option elsewhere with something to the effect that the 16 month timeframe was chosen based on considerations of maintaining stability, which I think applies too.)
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )IIRC you provided an option elsewhere with something to the effect that the 16 month timeframe was chosen based on considerations of maintaining stability, which I think applies too.)
I forgot to address this earlier. No, I didn't provide that as "an option". I said that that does seem to be the case (that Obama's position does seem to be that the 16 month timeframe was chosen -- as opposed to some shorter time period -- based on considerations of maintaining stability). But of course my question relates to a scenario in which he finds that his current assumption (or at least the assumption he claims to have) is wrong. My question is what his position is on what he'd do in that hypothetical scenario.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Please do elaborate. If you say his position is #1, you're saying that his position is that he will implement his plan to begin withdrawals immediately upon taking office and withdraw combat troops (aside from residual) over a 16 month period, perhaps with brief delay (e.g. a couple of months) in the interest of achieving/maintaining a given level of stability, but after at most this brief delay, he would withdraw per his timetable even if he thought it would jeopardize stability. That's what #1 is.
But then you seem to be saying that he MIGHT delay (even reverse) withdrawals to prevent or stop genocide, which is one form of instability, albeit an extreme one. And you're not saying how long he might delay withdrawals to prevent or stop genocide -- how long? Is there a maximum delay implied in his position even for a genocide scenario?
If you don't mind, could you take a look at my list here http://theforvm.org/diary/spartacvs/open-thread#comment-107119, which I think is essentially exhaustive and mutually exclusive. If your answer is "A" except in case of genocide or likely genocide, in which case it is [whatever other letter], that's fine.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )can I ask directly whether you agree the position I've sketched out is not the same as (2), regardless of what you think of its merits?
I pick (B) from that other list.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not sure yet what that position is, so I can't anwer that question yet.
You picked "B" from the list.
Are you saying his position is that he would withdraw after a few months even if he thought it would jeopardize stability, with the exception that he might delay further to prevent or stop genocide?
If so, what do you think is his position on how long he would or might he delay in the "genocide" scenario?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The PDF version detailing Obama's Iraq plan has this quote: "He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress genocidal violence within Iraq."
The Iraq "Issues" page has this quote: "He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."
My impression is that the first version (without the "potential") is more consistent with his statements. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
(Edit: and yes, I've read the page before, I was looking for the exact wording, which is why I noticed this.)
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Basically I think Obama doesn't want us playing cop to mediate sectarian violence, and that his opinion is that attempting to use our military for that purpose won't bring about the political progress that would prevent the underlying causes of such violence, and might inhibit it. I think he'd hedge his bet by holding off a few months if he thought he actually faced a situation in which withdrawal would be risking stability in Iraq, especially if the top military commanders recommended that course of action.
If, God forbid, things got so bad in Iraq that it became clear that genocide was occurring, I'm guessing he'd basically start over from scratch, essentially admitting that he'd seriously underestimated the amplitude of violence that was possible absent troops (and maybe with, but we'd never know, not having access to alternate timelines). Go in, use the military to bring the death rate well below genocidal levels (say back to 1/2007 numbers), try and imprison or execute the top figures involved with instigating and carrying on the genocide, maybe wait a few months to see if things seem stabilized, and then withdraw over 16 months or so again.
This is all separate from the debate over what we ought to do, of course.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )thanks.
Just to be clear about my question though, and see if your answer is the same:
First, I'm not asking what you think he would do in such a scenario, I'm asking what he has stated or implied in at least a somewhat clear way is his position now regarding what he would do in such a scenario.
Is your answer the same as the one you've given for what you think he would do, or has he not stated or implied a position (but you are speculating)?
Second, the scenario I'm presenting is one in which Obama comes to believe that continuing to delay withdrawals (beyond just a few months) would be likely to have a substantial positive effect on the level of stability. I realize that is not his view now, but I'm asking about his position regarding a scenario in which his view has changed (presumably due to changing circumstances, or perhaps due to learning of something that changes his view).
Again, is your answer the same?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )IMHO this is the best bet on his true position from a former top aid...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeah, and she got immediately canned for saying that, because it didn't fit with what Obama wanted primary voters to think was his position. Then, on July 3 and since, Obama has shifted to carefully-crafted, deliberate ambiguity.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )sink stragety. She was an unpaid advisor that I am sure fell on the sword out of political convenience. Only then to advise less openly until the election is over...I would be surprised if she was not in an Obama administration if that comes to pass...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You are correct that the "monster" comment was also an issue, but she said that on the very same day (3/6/08) as her comment re: the timetable. I'm inclined to think that the "monster" comment alone would not have led to her, ahem, "resignation", and I'd even say that of the two, the greater factor was her comment on the timetable (which was very sensible and responsible, unlike the position Obama was conveying at the time, which was basically that Democratic primary voters could take his withdrawal timetable to the bank).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In elections you hedge and simplify, to the point of being all things to all people.. Great politicians can do both sides well. Campaign and Govern.. Reagan and Clinton come to mind...Of course we could quibble on both... Obama can campaign well or his team has so far.. Beating the Clinton machine was not something predicted or easy... Still having advisers that are intellectually honest and smart as I view powers to be shows well IMHO of Obama... What is it they call a gaff? Telling the truth at an in opportune time... Of course you wanted what the candidate would do not my view.. I just think powers has a better idea than other sources.... If you don't factor in the haze of election politics you will not get close to the truth IMHO...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I respect Power greatly because of her writing on genocide and her efforts re: Darfur, and as I said, I think her comments re: Iraq in that clip were sensible and responsible -- much more so than the candidate. If the candidate was being dishonest in strongly implying a very different position -- which I believe he was during the primaries, and is now in his insistence that his current statements (of deliberate ambiguity) are perfectly consistent with his past statements -- that's something people should at least recognize and admit, and factor that into their vote as they see fit. As for what the candidate's true intention is -- what he said during the primaries, what Power said at the time, or just a big question mark as it seems to be now -- I don't know, but it's worth considering the extent to which a candidate's promises during a campaign raise the political cost to him of deviating from those promises as president and thus make such deviation less likely.
Picture Obama going a full year without even beginning withdrawals because he has come to believe that beginning withdrawals would carry great risk of enormous instability, and picture him at the end of that year, if his view hasn't changed, facing the decision of continuing to delay vs. beginning withdrawals, with all those folks screaming that he promised he would begin withdrawals immediately upon taking office and calling him a liar who deceived them to win the nomination (and perhaps also to win the general election). Much tougher for him to do what he thinks is the right thing to do under those circumstances.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In some respects the voices that would howl would do so less because they IMHO think that he is the better choice on the issue. I also don't think that he will play his cards that close on the issue. I don't think he believes he is cornered on policy or changes if the circumstances change. At this point I take that he intends to do as he says but has stated on the record that facts on the ground could dictate changes.. You don't seem to agree...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't know what his public position is now (as of July 3) regarding my question. During the primaries, his answer was fairly clearly "B" or "C" (he might delay briefly, such as for a few months, but after than he'd proceed with withdrawals even if he thought it significantly increased the chances of substantial instability). He didn't state that explicitly, of course, but it was implied by what he said and what he conspicuously did not say, even when asked directly. As of July 3, he has shifte to deliberately ambiguous statements as to what his answer to my question is.
As for "he...has stated on the record that facts on the ground could dictate changes", well that's the kind of vague, ambiguous baloney that I'm talking about, the stuff that lets him have it both ways. He speaks of "tactical adjustments" to "maintain stability". Well, what does that really mean? If "tactical adjustments" mean only brief delays, what would he / might he do if he comes to think that further delays would significantly reduce the risk of instability? Would he definitely proceed with withdrawals anyway or would he (or might he -- meaning would he even consisder) delay further? That's my question, and it's one he's being careful not to answer, because he doesn't want to say he'd proceed if it would significantly jeopardize stability (rather than say, waiting several more months if he thought that would significantly reduce the risk of instability), but nor does he want to say that he would consider delaying for a substantial period of time or even indefinitely. So he's avoiding a straight answer so he can have it both ways. And Obama supporters, for the most part, are doing the same on his behalf, I think some knowingly (deliberatlely spinning for him) and some obliviously.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to that level of detail, unless I missed it.
But presumably I'm correct that he has not gone so far down this hypothetical road, because otherwise you'd know the answer and wouldn't be asking Obama supporters, right? Or is this exercise aimed more at them than at determining Obama's stance? (I'm happy to participate either way, just curious.)
Second, the scenario I'm presenting is one in which Obama comes to believe that continuing to delay withdrawals (beyond just a few months) would be likely to have a substantial positive effect on the level of stability.
I would quibble that this is not exactly the same thing as saying that withdrawals after a few months "would jeopardize stability in Iraq." If you want to invert the expression you could just insert a negative, ie "Obama comes to believe that continuing to delay withdrawals (beyond just a few months) would not jeopardize the level of stability." This seems to me to makes the cost-benefit more obvious, and helps explain why (I think) he would elect to withdraw troops -- because at some point bringing American troops home is worth jeopardizing stability in Iraq.
At the same time preventing or stopping genocide would seem worth going back in (or remaining) to accomplish.
Now granted there is sort of a disconnect with how you go from jeopardizing stability to intervening in force to prevent genocide. I believe the required missing step there is a belief that instability in Iraq is unlikely to escalate to the point of genocide. Putting significant resources into maintaining stability because one is worried about a potential genocide down the road wouldn't make sense if the assessed probability that instability would lead to genocide were low.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I would say he has not stated his position to that level of detail, unless I missed it.
"detail"? Why would you characterize it as "that level of detail"? It's not a "detail" question, but rather a central, fundamental distinction, and a question that has lay at the heart of the Iraq debate all along and on which presidential candidates of both parties vigorously sought to differentiate themselves from each other and from the candidates of the other party.
As for what I'm trying to do here, well, lots of Obama supporters have been saying that his answer to my question is, and has always been clear, yet in almost all cases they can't (or won't) tell me what Obama's answer IS (one here on Forvm did immediately, and one or two others did after an enormous amount of tooth-pulling on my part that really shouldn't have been necessary). And it seems that the reason it's been so hard to get an answer is because Obama supporters want to have it both ways: they don't want to say/think that Obama would proceed with withdrawals (perhaps after some brief delay) even if he thought doing so significantly increased the chances of instability, but they also don't want to say/think that Obama is not absolutely committed to withdrawal (roughly) per his timetable. So they take me around in circles trying to maintain two mutually exclusive assertions: his position is that he will definitely proceed with withdrawal after some brief delay at most, but that he won't proceed if he thinks it would jeopardize stability (more than would further delay). I'm pointing out that it's illogical to contend both (unless one assumes that Obama sees zero chance that he will come to see further delays as in the interest of stability, which I find an implausible premise -- Obama is too smart and has too competent advisors). I'm pointing out this ridiculousness, and trying to find out if Obama has been any clearer (since July 3) than I think he's been (which is not much, because he's been deliberately ambiguous so that voters can see what they want in his position -- something that is apparently working very well!). I also think that his position during the primaries WAS fairly clear -- that his commitment to withdraw roughly per his timetable is unconditional, NOT even potentially contingent upon withdrawals not jeopardizing stability -- and if that is the case, and if his position is now ambiguous (as I think it is), then that is a flip-flop geared toward the general election (and that's how I see it).
As for rephrasing my scenario, here goes: Obama faces a decision of whether to proceed with withdrawals or delay further. He looks at the potential consequences of each and assigns (explicitly or implicitly) magnitudes and probabilities to the potential levels of instability for each option. Overall, he sees a significantly greater chance of substantial instability (or substantially MORE instability if there is some reference point) if he proceeds with withdrawals vs. if he delays further. His "overall stability outlook" (just for reference for our conversation) is significantly worse for the "proceed" option than for the "delay" option. Is that clear enough?
Re: genocide, it sounds like you're saying that Obama's current position (stated explicitly or at least fairly clearly implied) is that if he saw a significant threat of genocide (either immediate or as a second step following greater instability of some other sort first), he would (or at least might) forgo withdrawals entirely and indefinitely. Correct?
As for instability that Obama did not view as bringing a significant threat of genocide, what are you saying is Obama's position (explicit or at least fairly clearly implied) -- please choose from my multiple choice list, and if you need to distinguish additional scenarios as you did for genocide, fine -- or are you saying he has not indicated with much clarity what his position is regarding whether he would, would not, or might not withdraw roughly per his timetable if he thought that that option had a significantly worse overall stability outlook than further delay?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )a week ago. Maybe I've got the wrong gameshow, but I'm pretty sure you're supposed to offer me money or something if you want me to reconsider =)
Obama's current position (stated explicitly or at least fairly clearly implied) is that if he saw a significant threat of genocide (either immediate or as a second step following greater instability of some other sort first), he would (or at least might) forgo withdrawals entirely and indefinitely
Re: "threat of genocide" versus "genocide" -- see here.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I picked B a week ago.
Come on, Brendan, keep up :p
You said that, and then I wanted to be sure you were clear on the question, so I made sure it was clear and asked if your answer was still the same -- see http://theforvm.org/diary/brendanm98/whats-difference#comment-108600 -- and you then said he hadn't given a position regarding that hypothetical. Now you're saying he has given a position and it's B. Please let me know which you're saying.
Re: genocide, a simple "yes" will do if I've represented your answer re: his position accurately. If it's not a yes, please tell me -- clearly -- what his position is: Might he forgo withdrawals altogether and indefinitely to prevent/stop genocide (either directly or as a result of other instability) or not? Please don't link to another comment, just answer that question clearly here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )On the one hand I have given my opinion as to what Obama's position is, and based on at least a modest familiarity with his record and campaign I choose B. On the other hand I have acknowledged that I don't have direct proof that this is exactly what he has claimed he will do -- I don't believe he's explicitly addressed the hypothetical in the terms you present, but feel free to correct me if that's wrong.
Let's just recap, starting here, so we can make sure we're on the same page:
(1) You ask me "what do you think IS Obama's current position?"
(2) I say "My personal opinion is that his position is [one of your options]"
(3) You then simultaneously ask me to elaborate re: genocide and provide a link to a multiple choice list of "possibilities for Obama's position" which concludes with "All you have to do is pick one (or say if you just have no idea what his position is)"
(4) I don't think that I "just have no idea what his position is" accurately describes my knowledge of his Iraq policy, so I choose B.
(5) You ask me if that's my final answer
(6) I say yes, and explain more re: genocide
(7) Now you say that the question is "I'm asking what he has stated or implied in at least a somewhat clear way is his position now regarding what he would do in such a scenario."
(8) I answer that I don't believe he has "stated his position to that level of detail, unless I missed it."
(9) You don't provide any cite suggesting he has so stated his opinion, so I presume that to the best of your knowledge I am correct that he has not explicitly addressed your hypothetical. Yes or no?
(10) There is no contradiction here. I stated my belief, it is a modestly informed opinion and hence doesn't qualify for the "just have no idea what his position is" from (3), but at the same time I don't speak for him and am not aware of everything he's said, so I cannot answer with 100% certainty as to "what he has stated or implied in at least a somewhat clear way is his position now regarding what he would do in such a scenario" -- once again, if you have this information, please simply provide it, and if you believe it to be unavailable, please explain why you persist in asking for it.
Re: genocide, the link provided the answer. Yes, to preventing/stopping direct genocide. His current campaign literature is ambiguous as to whether "potential" or only actual genocide constitutes reason to consider halting withdrawals (or sending in additional forces) and once again I can only offer my opinion, based on various interviews and such, that "potential" would not suffice for such delays. Note also that "indefinitely" really doesn't make any sense in the context of halting genocide -- not to be gruesome, but if you don't actually halt the genocide in a fixed period of time (a function of the massacre rate and the total population of targeted victims) then there's no longer any genocide to stop, because most of the victims are dead.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Brendan, I'm gonna skip the complex discussion of the discussion and just ask plainly the following, and hopefully I'll get clear answers.
1) Do you think Obama has indicated with much clarity what his position is for the scenario I've described (leaving aside the "genocide / threat of genocide scenario")? Sounds like you're saying "no", but please say "yes" or "no" or some matter of degree (how clear). And please bear in mind (so that I don't then ask for confirmation and not get confirmation and we have to go around in a circle) that if you say he hasn't indicated with much clarity what his position is, you are saying that he has not indicated with much clarity whether or not he would definitely proceed (roughly) per his timetable even if he thought it carried great risk of severe instability (and a much worse "stability outlook" than delaying), OR if he would definitely DELAY withdrawals as long as that was his outlook, even if that meant NEVER even beginning withdrawals, OR somewhere in between.
2) If you think he HAS indicated with a fair degree of clarity what his position is, are you saying it's "B" for scenarios other than the "genocide / threat of genocide" scenario? In other words, are you saying that his position is that, short of at least a significant threat of genocide, he would proceed with withdrawals after a few months of delay maximum, even if he thought that doing so carried a significantly higher risk of great instability, and a significantly worse "stability outlook" than the stability outlook if he delays further, even for, say, another several months? And if you're saying that, as far as you know, he has NOT been fairly clear on what he would do (or not do or might do) in that scenario, are you saying that that is your read (an educated guess) on what he has in mind for such a scenario?
3) For the "threat of genocide" scenario, what I mean by "indefinitely" was that he might delay withdrawals for his entire term(s) if he continued to see that threat (i.e., no time limit to the delay). It sounds like you're saying that, as far as you know from his statements, if actual genocide were occurring, Obama would or might delay withdrawals altogether for his entire term(s) to stop the genocide, and it's unclear whether or not Obama's position is the same (regarding possibly forgoing withdrawals altogether) if genocide were not actually taking place, but Obama saw the risk of genocide as significantly higher under the "proceed with withdrawals" option vs. the "further delay" option (so you don't have a clear idea of whether Obama's position is that he would proceed roughly per his timetable anyway even if he saw a significant threat of genocide -- and a significantly higher risk vs. if he delays -- or if he'd delay for as long as he saw that threat, or somewhere in between).
Correct to all of the above? If not, PLEASE be as clear as I know you can be.
And for all of the above, please either just give me a "yes" or be clear on what you're saying -- what your answers are. I think my questions are sufficiently clear.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why are you changing the conditional? You originally asked whether he would continue withdrawals "even if he thought it would jeopardize stability." Jeopardize means "to expose to danger or risk" and so this is saying that stability would be exposed to danger or risk.
You are now asking whether he would continue withdrawals "even if he thought it carried great risk of severe instability (and a much worse "stability outlook" than delaying)."
Are you deliberately asking a new question, seeking to find the break point between "jeopardize stability" and "prevent genocide"? Because your phrasing makes it sound like you consider your above questions to be perfectly consistent with your first set, when I submit they are not.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not "changing the conditional" at all. If someone makes an absolute statement (e.g., Obama's position is that, in scenario X, he will definitely withdraw with a delay of a few months maximum), then they are saying that the extremes are covered by that absolute statement, so my asking about an extreme (within that scenario) is NOT "changing the conditional" at all. I've been very clear. If someone states that Obama's position is that he would definitely withdraw after a delay of a few months maximum even if he thought it wold jeopardize stability (or as I elaborated/clarified, if proceeding with withdrawals at that point presented a significant risk of substantial instability and a significantly greater chance of substantial instability than the chance of such instability under the "delay further" option), then that person IS saying that Obama's position is that he would proceed with withdrawals "even if he thought it carried great risk of severe instability (and a much worse "stability outlook" than delaying)". In other words, if someone states that Obama's position is absolute and unconditional (other than the "threat of genocide" scenario) -- sticking roughly to his timetable regardless of impact on stability outlook -- then they ARE saying that his position is to stick roughly to his timetable even if it carried great risk of severe instability and a much worse stability outlook than delaying.
If this helps, here's my suggestion:
Step 1. Define whatever scenarios you want (e.g., "Actual genocide taking place"; "Significant threat of genocide"; "All other threats of instability short of threat of genocide")
Step 2. For each scenario, tell me how clearly Obama has indicated his position (his position meaning his answer to my question re: what he would, would not, or might do regarding proceeding vs. delaying withdrawals if he thought proceeding carried significant -- and significantly greater -- risk of substantial instability. (e.g., His position is: Very clear, fairly clear, less than fairly clear but enough for a somewhat confident educated guess with significant uncertainty, not even clear enough for that educated guess)
Step 3. For each scenario, if his answer is very clear or fairly clear, tell me what it is -- from my multiple choice list. If it is less than fairly clear but clear enough for an educated guess with significant uncertainty, tell me what your educated guess is -- from my multiple choice list.
ok, do that and I should have answers. Just please think about what your answers mean so that I don't come back and seek confirmation and have you tell me again that I'm changing the question or for whatever other reason that you can't just give me a "yes" confirmation. For example, B and C mean he WILL NOT delay more than a few months regardless of impact on stability outlook, period. That's an absolute statement. It covers extremes, except for extremes that have been excluded from that scenario (e.g., genocide).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )(a) I'm not aware of everything Obama has said or done, or all of his campaign literature, and so anything I suggest that contradicts any of that is of course simply in error.
(b) Where I offer my opinion of what Obama would do, I am not speaking for other Obama supporters, some of whom are better informed.
(c) The probability associated with an event occurring decreases rapidly for more serious events, making some of these hypotheticals highly unlikely to take place.
(d) The basis of these hypotheticals is Obama changing his mind that withdrawing at his set pace does not threaten stability. So just to spell everything out, you are asking what he would do if he thought his proposed plan was based on an incorrect premise, ie if something unexpected happens that causes him to revisit his reasoning. But you haven't specified what sort of event might lead to this altering of his previous belief that withdrawal in 16 months does not jeopardize stability, so this whole discussion is taking place absent any of the context that might come from being more specific.
(e) I'd like to define a category midway between "fairly clear" and "educated guess with significant uncertainty" -- how about we call it "can be reasonably inferred" based on the sum total of his speeches, campaign literature, and so on?
1. "Jeopardize stability"
-> Can be reasonably inferred
-> B
-> From his vague statements about consulting with generals and withdrawing carefully I deduce that he would indeed halt withdrawals for a few months if he thought it would increase the chances of maintaining stability. However, his other statements such as not using troops to mediate a civil war suggest he views the costs of postponing withdrawals beyond that as too high relative to the goal of not jeopardizing stability.
2. "great risk of severe instability"
-> Unclear
-> If I had to guess, probably B or E
-> I haven't seen this scenario explicitly addressed and am not sure where Obama would place it on the spectrum between (1) and (4).
3. "Prevent potential genocide"
-> Unclear
-> If I had to guess, probably G or E
-> See here
4. "Prevent genocide"
---> Fairly clear
-> F, replacing "NEVER withdrawing" with "not withdrawing until genocide is ended"
-> His website provides statements saying "He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress [potential] genocidal violence within Iraq." His comments on Darfur suggest that he views the "with our international partners" aspect of this as important, but I don't think he'd have significant difficulties obtaining UN support or assistance from other countries. Power, his former adviser who helped craft his foreign policy, has written and spoken in favor of the US taking a more active role to prevent genocide.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My comment crossed paths with yours -- see http://theforvm.org/diary/brendanm98/whats-difference#comment-110178
Please define your scenarios #1 and #2 and explain what distinguishes one from the other and why your answers are different for each.
Re scenario #4, I would suggest a further refinement that I think is only sensible: "not withdrawing until genocide is ended and the risk of it resuming soon after our withdrawal is low". In other words, I don't think Obama's position would be that he'd delay withdrawals to stop genocide, but then resume withdrawals if he thought there was a good chance genocide would resume soon after we withdrew. Agree? Also, please distinguish #4 from #3. I assume #4 what distinguishes #4 is that actual, significant genocidal acts have already taken place and are continuing, but please define and distinguish them.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I would suggest a further refinement that I think is only sensible: "not withdrawing until genocide is ended and the risk of it resuming soon after our withdrawal is low". In other words, I don't think Obama's position would be that he'd delay withdrawals to stop genocide, but then resume withdrawals if he thought there was a good chance genocide would resume soon after we withdrew. Agree?
If you are placing this between (3) and (4), then sure. If you are restating (3) and suggesting it qualifies for delaying withdrawals, then see my answer to (3).
Also, please distinguish #4 from #3. I assume #4 what distinguishes #4 is that actual, significant genocidal acts have already taken place and are continuing, but please define and distinguish them.
Yes. I am not aware of a widely accepted definition for the death rate that qualifies as a genocide, but let's say a few hundred thousand deaths per year -- 400,000/year, maybe? Rwanda was about 800,000 for context. Current levels can be estimated from IBC, but this is probably a lower limit.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just one follow-up question (for now) re: #3 and #4:
For #3, what if Obama considered the probability of genocide (the "threat") to be high under the "proceed with withdrawals" option and significantly lower under the "delay further" option, even if sectarian violence up to that point had not yet reached the level of "genocide". Are you saying that it is unclear what Obama's position is, and if so, are you saying that, to your knowledge, he hasn't excluded any position between "A" and "G" for such a scenario (although your "guess", if you "had to guess", would be "probably G or E")? In other words, his position might be that he definitely wouldn't delay at all in that scenario, or that he definitely would proceed with withdrawals after a few months delay max, or that he might delay as long as that scenario persisted, etc.?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but from my perspective we've at least clarified many of the possibilities here, and I've found this discussion useful.
I'm not sure how much more time this is worth to either of us. Presumably you have your own interpretation of Obama's statements and actions, and obviously that should guide you more than whatever I or ano