New York Times: U.S. and Iraq Agree to Goals for Troop Cuts:The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.I thought that the Administration didn’t want to set any points in time—lines or points on the timeline—for withdrawals of troops? They've been pretty clear about that.
…
The administration on Friday insisted that it had not shifted its position. It said that the move was simply a reflection of the changing nature of conditions in Iraq.
“These are aspirational goals, not artificial timetables based on political expediency,” said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman....
Hmmm. A time “horizon,” is, of course, a horizon, and, according to my Mac's dictionary, a horizon is a line:
horizon |həˈrīzən|So a “time horizon” is clearly a point in time, a line on the timeline. A "general" time horizon presumably is one that is not specific: between this month and that month. OK, but to the extent that one is general, one is failing to really say anything. "We'll withdraw troops some time in the future" is meaningless. Further, those who have argued for a timeline don't seem to have a problem with some generality re the line or lines.
noun
1 [usu. in sing. ] the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet : the sun rose above the horizon.
The White House says that the horizon will not be "artificial." Artificial means “produced by human beings.” The White House's “time horizon” will of course be produced by human beings—unless they're consulting astrologers or tea leaves.
“Aspirational”? That’s just fancy talk for “we want this.” An "aspirational" goal is just a goal. C'mon.
So, I guess what this comes down to is: the White House has shifted its position. What's more, it has shifted it in the direction of what war critics have long wanted.
But it is asserting that, unlike war critics, the White House’s desire for an artificial timetable is not based on “political expediency.”
OK. That means that, unlike critics, the White House is not motivated by politics. —You know, like wanting to help out Republicans who are facing an election in a few months.
Really?
You gotta love politics.
HotForWords: "phoney"
7 comments:
I think you're wrong about Bush, Chunk. He doesn't want to "help out" Republicans any more than McAmnesty.
Perhaps so. But then what is he doing? I can imagine other motives, including "honest" ones (relative to his goals). In any case, why can't he simply acknowledge that he has now chosen to adopt a kind of timeline for a kind of withdrawal?
Things are changing (for us, for the better) in Iraq. But do not believe for a minute we're "leaving".
We're still in Germany, Japan, and Korea and the Balkans. We'd still be in Vietnam had we not bugged out (remember, we weren't defeated. We quit.).
Bush is enamored with the Wilsonian concept of democratization of nations. I don't believe he has ever given up on that concept re Iraq. It was what he was really saying if you listened closely when the focus was on WMD's.
Our country got burned leaving Europe post WWI. There are powerful forces that transcend the US Presidency that compel our military presence in foreign lands as a result. Like it or not we are the worlds 911. When there's serious trouble afoot you don't call the UN.
So the reason W won't acknowledge a timeline for withdrawal in Iraq, is that there isn't one. Troop reduction will take place as can be accomplished without leaving a power vacuum.
The immediate reason why we will stay is to check Iran. We certainly don't want another Iran/Iraq war do we? Once the Iranian nuke threat is neutralized there will still be that threat. We're in this for the long haul.
Seems pretty simple to me. I don't think policy has "shifted," changed, realigned, or accepted that critics were right all along. Plain and simple, it is media appeasement to the Iraqi people. It is simply one big lie with no real true intent.
Evidence of this, come election time, will be in the media so the neo-con's can say, "See we're withdrawing troops! Told you so! We've wanted out all along, also!"
In reality, it isn't a drawdown, but that some Brigades in Iraq will be nearing the end of their rotation, and the replacements may be smaller in number (not significantly).
If you've followed this story, an emboldened Iraq refused to accept a new agreement with the US without the phrasing of some sort of withdrawal. It would be dangerous for the troops on the ground should a timeline be made public, but refusing to acknowledge or even plan for the future is wrong. Commanders from every level have three plans they must submit to their own commanders, and they include the near term, near-short term, and long term. As you up the level of command, the planning increases to a longer outlook (further along the timeline).
Unfortunately, the jerk from AZ has a timeline stretching 50+ years... and Obama's timeline just doubled, in the least. At what point do we realize, or other countries, that we rarely do as we say?
Yea, I agree, 13. The leftist critics who predicted failure of the surge strategy certainly are changing their tune - including our grand savior, Obama.
Thanks everyone for your input about what is going on here (the Bush Administration's curious announcement).
I am not inclined to take anything that the Bush administration says seriously. My chief interest in this case is in the language these Bushies use--"aspirational goals," "general time horizon"--and in their tendency to be the pot calling the kettle black.
About the former: it's Orwellian, it's dishonest. About the latter: it's the same old thing. Why anyone puts up with it is beyond me.
As for the alleged success of the surge strategy: I am under the impression that the surge strategy was adopted for a specific goal (increased security to allow the Iraq government to take over the military effort) and that, by all reliable accounts, that goal has not been achieved. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#Results_of_the_Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
These endless announcements about the success of the surge is perhaps an instance of what logicians and philosophers call the fallacy of equivocation. "Success" (imperceptibly) shifts in meaning from one thing to a different thing as the announcement of "success achieved" is made. it's a shell game.
For a discussion of the goals of the surge, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
For a discussion of the fallacy, see
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/equivocation.html
P.S.:
I suppose the “equivocation” that I referred to above can be represented in the following chain of reasoning.
1. The surge strategy (SS) has improved matters (at least in short run) in Iraq.
2. Hence the surge strategy has been successful.
3. If the SS was successful, then it achieved its goals.
4. Thus the SS achieved its goals.
The problem concerns statement 3. Statement 3 is true, but only if we mean by “successful” specifically “has achieved its goals,” which, of course, is the most central meaning of “successful.”
But statement 2 seems to say exactly that. But not really, for, in 2, “successful” cannot mean “has achieved its goals.” Rather, it must mean, “has made things better.” (It must mean that in order to be true.)
So the reasoning only appears to be valid and sound owing to equivocation of “successful.”
The truth is that the surge strategy has been unsuccessful in the most ordinary and important sense of the word, for it failed achieve the goal used to sell it in the first place.
Arguably, the surge has made things better. But at a great cost.
This is all baby logic, of course. And yet the average American seems incapable of grasping it.
Post a Comment