" Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline"

[gaijin6423]

Does it count if I only vaguely remember it? I was a little busy at the time, as my Drill Instructors were thrashing us even more tenaciously, thanks to not getting paychecks.

 

[Intruder Driver]

Not that I'm trying to endorse politics by majority rule, because there are plenty of examples of when that's worked out badly, but in this particular case, the "will of the majority" supports the bill. Recent polls have had 59 percent of Americans supporting pullout by September 2008. Again, not saying that public opinion should be the ultimate arbiter of military policy, but that's what the polls are saying.

Since when have polls become the commander-in-chief, especially when less than 50% of the electorate voted.

 

[The Chief]

Since when have polls become the commander-in-chief ...

If I recall correctly; 01/1993-01/2001?

 

[mts4602]

It is a 2/3 majority...remember 8th grade?

Apparently not, haha

 

[Cate]

Since when have polls become the commander-in-chief, especially when less than 50% of the electorate voted.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Skidz said, "OMG Democrats don't represent the people," and I said, "Except for this situation right here, where the legislation in question advocates what two-thirds of the people want." There wasn't any deeper, hidden meaning to it.

 

[rdolin]

Quoted by: HueyCobra

bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Actually, the bill only provides about $102 billion for military spending, the rest is complete and utter pork.

* $14 billion for Katrina Hurricane Relief


The rest is not pork!!!!
First of all, most of the money beyond the 102 billion for the military, is for hurrican katrina relief. Our area still desperately needs money, not just for the citizens but for coastal restoration and improving our levees. It is a mess down here, and until you have been down here, don't judge the politicians and their actions. Some of them actually care. I wouldn't respond in this fashion if your statements were justified, however, they were not. I have not personally stayed in a FEMA trailer, but I have friends that are displaced and have been living in a FEMA trailer since the storm. Maybe you're used to crammed up spaces on a ship, but these people didn't sign up for this. People lost their homes and their lives. Think a little more before you open your mouth.

 

[xmid]

Maybe you're used to crammed up spaces on a ship, but these people didn't sign up for this.

They didn't sign up for it. They just chose to live in a major flood zone...

 

[rdolin]

They assumed that the levees would protect them.

As for people choosing, say that to everyone living by the San Andreas Fault Line.

 

[Brett327]

Quoted by: HueyCobra

bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Actually, the bill only provides about $102 billion for military spending, the rest is complete and utter pork.

* $14 billion for Katrina Hurricane Relief


The rest is not pork!!!!
First of all, most of the money beyond the 102 billion for the military, is for hurrican katrina relief. Our area still desperately needs money, not just for the citizens but for coastal restoration and improving our levees. It is a mess down here, and until you have been down here, don't judge the politicians and their actions. Some of them actually care. I wouldn't respond in this fashion if your statements were justified, however, they were not. I have not personally stayed in a FEMA trailer, but I have friends that are displaced and have been living in a FEMA trailer since the storm. Maybe you're used to crammed up spaces on a ship, but these people didn't sign up for this. People lost their homes and their lives. Think a little more before you open your mouth.

You can dial your indignant anger knob down a few notches there, hot rod. Just because the earmark contains funds for a good cause (especially one going to you), doesn't mean that it belongs in a DOD supplemental. In fact, I would argue that since this supplemental in its current form never had a chance at being signed into law, that your Katrina relief cause is ill served by being on this bill. If people in Katrina affected areas require additional funding, perhaps your elected representatives should initiate a bill for that purpose instead of using it as a chess piece in political games.

Brett

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I know all the arguments, and of course hindsight is 20/20, but you can hardly blame some lawmakers for refining their positions based on what we now know to be true. In theory, there are a lot of reasons why regime change in Iraq was a good idea (and a lot of reasons why it was a bad idea), but since the thrust of the administrations argument was the necessity for preemptive action based on the imminent threat posed by WMDs, I think we can be more understanding of why some people's positions (including my own) have changed since that premise has since proven to be false.

- Accusations of "flip-flopping" aside, I think that anyone who can take new evidence into account and change their position on a subject accordingly is an asset to government, not a liability.

While I am certainly all for refining your position as you gain knowledge/experience (hell, everyone does it by instinct alone), that isn't the issue at hand.

Certainly, with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight we could say "Maybe attacking Iraq isn't the best idea" or "Maybe we should plan for building an infrastructure before we go in and destroy their existing infrastructure."

However, you can't change the past. All good intentions aside, there is nothing we can do about the fact that currently we are in Iraq. Do we leave it in shambles unable to fend for itself when the all out Civil War between Sunni, Shia'a, et. al, happens? Or do we continue to rebuild it to the point where it can function independently?

Some things I consider when I think about the situation, that may or may not be relevant:
-The current troop surge is seeing promise
-It took considerably more time and money to rebuild Japan/Germany
-It took the US 11 years from the time of the Revolution until the signing of OUR constitution in 1787
-As far as the cost is concerned, this is one of the cheapest (if not THE cheapest conflict ever)

I don't want you all to think I am drinking the kool-aid, I just try to be as pragmatic as possible. It seems to me that if we pull out now, without accomplishing an independent govt., all the lives and money spent will have been for nothing - and not only that but the situation will be worse than how we found it.

 

[The Chief]

... Some things I consider when I think about the situation, that may or may not be relevant: ....

With due respect would like to add one more:

Some 43 years after the "stalemate" in Korea, we still have a large number of military there, ostensibly to keep Koreans away from Koreans, some claim a "Civil War".

 

[Cate]

Some things I consider when I think about the situation, that may or may not be relevant:
-The current troop surge is seeing promise
-It took considerably more time and money to rebuild Japan/Germany
-It took the US 11 years from the time of the Revolution until the signing of OUR constitution in 1787
-As far as the cost is concerned, this is one of the cheapest (if not THE cheapest conflict ever)

I don't want you all to think I am drinking the kool-aid, I just try to be as pragmatic as possible. It seems to me that if we pull out now, without accomplishing an independent govt., all the lives and money spent will have been for nothing - and not only that but the situation will be worse than how we found it.

Those are certainly all good points, and there's certainly something to be said for giving a strategy time to prove itself out. But at the same time, there's no need to be stupid about it. When someone in the administration says, "You can't put a time limit on this, we're in it to win it," what they're doing is denying the validity of the question how long is too long?

And that's a question that a lot of people are asking themselves. If, f'rinstance, we were told that it would take 100 years at current force levels, 75,000 troop deaths, and $25 trillion to realize a peaceful and independent government in Iraq, would that be worth the cost? What about 50 years and 37,000 troops? What about 80 years, but only 4,000 deaths? We can't set an arbitrary standard to it, but we also all have some idea of what we'd consider just too much. And an open-ended commitment doesn't acknowledge that.

I can't say I know a whole lot about running a military campaign, but I do know something about running an advertising campaign. And one aspect that's absolutely crucial is setting objectives that are specific, measureable, and time-sensitive. That last one is very important because without some kind of a time limit, you'll never really know if you're meeting your objective - and if you don't know if you're meeting your objective, you don't know if you need to tweak your strategy and tactics to succeed. You'll just muddle along forever, thinking, "Well, it's not looking great now, but if we give it enough time, it's bound to work."

Obviously, the idea of setting time limits or benchmarks bothers a lot of people, and the argument has been made that it just tells the enemy how long they'll have to lay low until we're gone. But the argument can also be made that without some sort of timeline, and deadlines with consequences, we'll never know if we are actually making progress and we'll be there fordamnever.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Those are certainly all good points, and there's certainly something to be said for giving a strategy time to prove itself out. But at the same time, there's no need to be stupid about it. When someone in the administration says, "You can't put a time limit on this, we're in it to win it," what they're doing is denying the validity of the question how long is too long?

And that's a question that a lot of people are asking themselves. If, f'rinstance, we were told that it would take 100 years at current force levels, 75,000 troop deaths, and $25 trillion to realize a peaceful and independent government in Iraq, would that be worth the cost? What about 50 years and 37,000 troops? What about 80 years, but only 4,000 deaths? We can't set an arbitrary standard to it, but we also all have some idea of what we'd consider just too much. And an open-ended commitment doesn't acknowledge that.

I can't say I know a whole lot about running a military campaign, but I do know something about running an advertising campaign. And one aspect that's absolutely crucial is setting objectives that are specific, measureable, and time-sensitive. That last one is very important because without some kind of a time limit, you'll never really know if you're meeting your objective - and if you don't know if you're meeting your objective, you don't know if you need to tweak your strategy and tactics to succeed. You'll just muddle along forever, thinking, "Well, it's not looking great now, but if we give it enough time, it's bound to work."

Obviously, the idea of setting time limits or benchmarks bothers a lot of people, and the argument has been made that it just tells the enemy how long they'll have to lay low until we're gone. But the argument can also be made that without some sort of timeline, and deadlines with consequences, we'll never know if we are actually making progress and we'll be there fordamnever.

Hey Cate, did you ever see this site (Airwarriors) when it first went live? And if you did, do you think you could have ever predicted how successful it has turned out? There was a marketing strategy early on for the first couple years that was very proactive on my part. I left the Airwarriors link just about every place on the internet I visited--mostly other general and military aviation sites and discussion boards. I could tell where people were coming from and what was working vs. what wasn't by monitoring the logs and then after John took over, by talking to him about those things. Now, the marketing strategy is to let word of mouth work its magic...and it does. The point is this: you aren't always going to know where you're going to end up. You may have measurable objectives, which is great. But sometimes you need to have faith that you're doing the right thing and that you will be rewarded for your efforts.

Setting an arbitrary pull out date is nothing short of sheer idiocy. It's a political temper-tantrum by the Dems and a way for them to make themselves look strong. In the end though, it only goes to once again prove how out of touch they are with realty and that they have no business having someone in the White House.

 

[Cate]

All of that is great, unless you're dealing with human lives and billions of dollars and possibly the fate of the entire Middle East. "Having faith that you're doing the right thing" is a bit of a shaky standard for sending people into combat.

Now, I think that an arbitrary pullout date is idiocy. But I think that having benchmarks isn't just non-idiocy, it's wise. Setting short-term goals that will contribute to the success of the long-term goals is wise. Saying, "We need to have X number of Iraqi police officers in uniform, showing up to work, and not murdering people on the job within Y months, or we're going to have to seriously reexamine our strategy" is wise, because otherwise, you're sitting there with 1,000 Iraqi police officers and two-thirds don't show up at all and you're saying, "Well, give it a few more months, maybe? I dunno." Saying, "The Iraqi government has to have X provision for human rights and Y provision for distribution of oil revenues established in law within Z months, or we're withdrawing A support" is wise, because otherwise, you're sitting there under sharia law saying, "Come on, guys, won't you get with the program, pretty please?"

If you'd had to mortgage your house to get Airwarriors up and running, you'd probably have wanted some benchmarks, right? You'd have said, "I need to see X page views from Y unique visitors within Z months, or I'm broadening my target market and going after all military." Because otherwise, you could lose your house. You wouldn't have been setting arbitrary deadlines; you would have been deciding, based on the information you had, what you realistically thought you could accomplish, because if you didn't, you could lose your house. Now switch it up and imagine you could die if Airwarriors wasn't successful.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

All of that is great, unless you're dealing with human lives and billions of dollars and possibly the fate of the entire Middle East. "Having faith that you're doing the right thing" is a bit of a shaky standard for sending people into combat.

Wait...what?

So you are saying that we are dealing with human lives and billions of dollars and possibly the fate of the entire Middle East, and yet you agree with the Senate decision to set an arbitrary pullout date...

Now, I think that an arbitrary pullout date is idiocy. But I think that having benchmarks isn't just non-idiocy, it's wise.

But the bill in question isn't a benchmark - it is an arbitrary pullout date, one which you stated earlier matches the will of the people.

You just said:
When someone in the administration says, "You can't put a time limit on this, we're in it to win it," what they're doing is denying the validity of the question how long is too long?

--

If you'd had to mortgage your house to get Airwarriors up and running, you'd probably have wanted some benchmarks, right? You'd have said, "I need to see X page views from Y unique visitors within Z months, or I'm broadening my target market and going after all military." Because otherwise, you could lose your house. You wouldn't have been setting arbitrary deadlines; you would have been deciding, based on the information you had, what you realistically thought you could accomplish, because if you didn't, you could lose your house. Now switch it up and imagine you could die if Airwarriors wasn't successful.

So to continue your analogy, you mortgaged your house 3 years ago to start up Airwarriors, you didn't get "X page views from Y unique visitors within Z months" so now you are going to quit and lose your house, or, to switch it up, die?

You are arguing a point about benchmarks, when the discussion is about a bill with an arbitrary pullout date - it does not include any benchmarks at all.