I think it's lame that the administration gets away with having no time tables, no estimates, no assumptions. Just cutesy "however long it takes" rhetoric, and a total lack of information to the American public. I voted for these guys, but that's not saying much when you consider the alternative. I mean, fine, resolve is great. Staying the course is great. But are you trying to tell me no one in the gubmint has a friggin clue about how long it will take to squash the insurgency or train Iraqis to take over for themselves?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that they don't have any idea how long this whole thing will take. Does it follow that we should not do it at all?
Attention enemies: We will be leaving the area on October 16, 2005. Smart thinking, Huck. The lack of information to the American public is also a lack of information to the terrorists.
You can't be this clueless. You actually think that we should make our war plans public?
Imagine asking FDR in 1942 how much its going to cost, and how long are we going to be over there...
The answer then, as now, is that its unknowable. It depends in part on the enemy. How long will it be before the enemy sees this fight as hopeless, unwinnable, and gives it up? An important piece of this puzzle is the perception the enemy has of our resolve. If he sees us waver every time we take a hit, then hope for him is still alive, and the fight continues.
I would say that the time table is tied to the Iraqi government's ability to defend itself, and there are probably still a couple of names from the "deck of cards" that we want to take down before we declare victory. Those two are probably the bottom line issues, and how that relates to a calendar is probably irrelevant.
Beyond that, my guess is that we aren't leaving until Syria has been pushed into holding elections. So my guess is we're there for another five years.
Congressman Billybob