watching President Bush's speech on Iraq Tuesday night, it became clear to me that setting a date for withdrawal is absolutely what needs to be done. perhaps saying this comes as a surprise for most readers. but, similar to Howard Dean, i've been able to see both positions, and was unsure what i thought about a timetable.
watching Bush i realized that it's helpful to put things in simple human terms and what i see is this: the crying need for Boundaries. Bush is creating perpetual chaos because there are no boundaries. (i say this in spite of the facts of the folly and horror of the war itself.)
we do very little with success in life without boundaries: 'i will do this much and no more and if the time comes to shift the boundary that's always a possibility.'
i think the war in Iraq will not be successful (whatever success means here) without the establishment of boundaries such as a firm date for withdrawal of troops and a firm commitment to spend a finite amount of American capital. the only limit exercised so far seems to be with regards to the number of troops and i venture to say, that's the case because there's a recognition that things would not change with more 'Coalition' troops unless the definition of success were simply 'killing more Iraqi's' and American soldiers; ie: success equals more death.
it's clear to most people paying attention, this is not a conventional war to be solved with the convention of 'overwhelming odds.' (Powell Doctrine?)
it seems clear also that US troop training follows a model that does Not work in Iraq and maybe does not work any more anywhere at all. i read an article on the death of a young soldier from an IED who was traveling inside a Bradley armored vehicle. it brought an overwhelming rush of awareness that these young people are sitting ducks.
if a firm withdrawal date is set, it's true that insurgents, as well as all other factions, will work to maximize their own interest; i think that's a minor problem similar to waiting out the clock during the last few seconds of a basketball game, when the game is over. in Iraq, who knows who the winners are, but it's clear who the losers are and perhaps the USA is the biggest loser of all. if we set a firm date for withdrawal, we gain a modicum of control and dignity. all sides will declare victory; if leadership in Washington break out of their fortress mentality which recognizes only the state of win or lose, good or bad, black or white, friend or enemy, good guy /bad guy in which they will accept only specific results; if they're smart, they can declare victory louder than everyone else and go home.
i'm aware of the permanent bases we have constructed and the actions designed for permanent influence in Iraq. in this post, i'm leaving that outside the topic.
my concern is for the health of THIS nation, and in my view, establishing boundaries is a necessity.
in the same way that in our own lives, we must set boundaries in order to function, for the health of the nation, the United States of America, this open ended perpetual agression without clear boundaries, weakens us, causing damage to the very heart.
a thought on the matter of change: it could be that we here in the US have not "reached our bottom," things have not become bad enough at home for people to really want to improve, to heal, to grow and change policies.
in this post, i'm addressing a very specific point Bush made, on whether or not there should be a deadline for withdrawal and my answer is emphatically yes; this openended policy is wrong. he is wrong again. here i argue yes for a deadline based on this principle of establishing Boundaries; not based on it being an illegal, immoral and unjust occupation; which i think it clearly is.
Patricia Cole