this morning i heard senator russ feingold and representative ileana ros-lehtinen debate whether the u.s. should set a timetable for pulling out of iraq. ros-lehtinen repeated the bush administration's usual refrain that a timetable is an "artificial deadline" that would only embolden terrorists.
the more i think about that argument, the less sense it makes. it is the open-ended nature of this mission that encourages the insurgency in iraq. you can only get people to risk their lives to fight to end the u.s.' military occupation if they do not believe the occupation will end on its own.
besides, what will happen when u.s. forces do pull out? unless there is a pre-publicized timetable for leaving, whenever the u.s. leaves, anti-american forces (whether the present insurgency or their successors) will claim that they caused the u.s. to leave and claim victory.
that's exactly what happened with israel in lebanon. for more than 15 years israel occupied a portion of southern lebanon, rebuffing repeated calls from the international community for a timetable for its withdrawal. in the late 1990s, israel's continued presence in lebanon became increasingly untenable and it decided to withdraw unilaterally. the decision was based on a number of different factors, both foreign and domestic, but because the move was not pursuant to an independently established timetable, hezbollah claimed credit for the withdrawal. the pullout is now remembered in lebanon and much of the arab world as an israeli retreat from hezbollah, which makes hezbollah the only arab forces who can claim victory over the israelis. simply put, it was not having a pre-existing timetable that emboldened the terrorists in lebanon. indeed, it made them heroes in the eyes of many.
almost everyone believes that u.s. forces will leave iraq someday. but if they leave without a clear pre-existing timetable, we are setting up the insurgency for the same P.R. coup that hezbollah got out of the israeli withdrawal from lebanon.
