Good point. But I think the key is that our military won't let them lay low. I think the time limit is reasonable. I can't believe I'm saying this -- that I agree with this thug in the White House ... BUT the reality is that with a troop surge (such as what worked reliably in Iraq) which the field commanders in-country have been requesting, if the job can't be done in three years, it probably can't be done at all. Give our guys what they need to WIN and the proper ROE to do the job and I'll bet they do in fact get the job done. OHHH BABY's not looking to reassure his base with a cut and run in time for re-election, he's looking to woo the opposition with a VICTORY in time for re-election! That's fine. Our victory still won't help him because he'll hang himself on his domestic agenda, not the war.
did it take 6 months to trickle in troops for the Iraq surge?
A 6 month buildup does not sound like a “surge”. The word victory does not appear in any of his announced “strategy”
Geez, you’ve missed the point entirely!! It doesn’t matter if we can do it in 6 months with the extra troops. By using ANY sort of a date it allows the enemy to go home, lay low and KNOW the enemy is leaving on a date certain.
It is the STUPIDEST and most poorly thought out strategy imaginable. It was done for one reason, to appease his anti American base. he has all but guaranteed Afghanistan will become another Viet Nam.
But letting the Taliban/al Qaeda know exactly how long they need to lay low and rebuild in secret is an asinine plan. They will stockpile weapons and train, waiting until right before our next presidential election and then unleash holy hell on our retreating soldiers to declare victory. And they will be right.
You don’t get a victory by dispatching 75% of the minimum the generals in the field say they need and putting a timeframe on the operation.