Skip to main content

View Diary: Joementum in Iraq (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Want to echo . . . (none)
     . . . the comments others have made dissenting with the conclusion of kos's post.

    The debate over what is the "best plan on the table" has, unfortunately, just begun. Murtha's HUGE contribution was to legitimize debates over plans that include relatively quick withdrawal and timetables. But as the post describing Edwards's plan reveals, there are multiple such plans. IMO folks here and around the blogosphere would do well to dig into and debate the alternatives more thoroughly. It's easy, seductively easy, to spend time belaboring the obvious idiocy of columns like Lieberman's.

    Not that the better debating isn't already beginning. There is useful discussion of the air support option following Hersh's latest piece (again, I echo the other dissents with kos's conclusion -- at this point those opposed to the air support plan, including Air Force generals, seem to be winning this debate).

    Even if we stipulate that timetables are beter than benchmarks, three issues need better plans and/or debates:

    1. If the "leaders" of Iraq want timetables, what precise timetables do they want?
    2. Should we not wait until after the election to commit to a plan? Announce now that within one month of the December election we will establish a plan of withdrawal with timetables that has the approval of Iraq's government.
    3. What is a REALITY BASED timetable for training Iraqis? Our administration lies, so this one may be really tough. But the benchmarks vs. timetables debate relies on a better answer to this qestion than we now have.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site