"On the other hand, if you publish the timetable as well as milestones then you immediately accomplish your first goal - removing much of the psychology behind the insurgency (not Al-Qaida's loons but the real indigenous Iraqi insurgency)and make it possible for the first time to negotiate a ceasefire with that insurgency. What will happen next is analogous to what happened when the IRA declared a ceasefire but the hardline "real IRA" did not. The hardliners lost all popular support, even from those who until then had been fighting alongside them. Without popular support from at least a sizeable minority a terror organisation is always on a downward spiral of disapproval, turned informers and eventual dissolution."

This part is the first thing you said that may get me to budge up a little bit on a published timetable, though I would be leery, and quick to retract if the desired effect fails to come about.

Also, before you lump me in with BushCo, all I said was that I was against the publishing. I'm still of the mind that there needs to be a timetable and milestones, I'm good on that, I just don't think that needs to be made public knowledge. It's maybe one of the few things from the current administration that I think makes common sense.

To be honest, though, my big statement is... I don't know. I do think that it is a try and see kind of sitch. I don't spend much time on the Iraqi political climate to know whether it can handle something like this. I mean if it were just Iraqi nationalism, sure, but my question is what about the dynamics of the baathists, kurds, and Shiites? And there is the Al Qaeda factor.

So here I think we can at least put a bit of our impasse to rest. Based solely on the reason expressed above, I'll tentatively agree with you that a published timeline is worth a go with the one disclaimer that if it doesn't work, you go back to tradition.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to dig back into the hill (on a side note, I've just started kicking around a collab with a mutual friend that I'll keep you informed about. I think you'll be quite interested at the results)

K
Mr. M | Homepage | 11.29.05 - 11:42 pm | #

"The important point is to publish a timetable, not the timetable. Publish one that has a good margin for error built in and then work to a secret but tighter timetable. That way, you get the pleasantly surprised reactions of Iraqis and those on the home front as each milestone is passed ahead of the published agenda!"

Oh, look at that, even more of the impasse cleared up. I can work with this a little more.
Mr. M | Homepage | 11.29.05 - 11:45 pm | #

Thanks M.

To be honest I'm surprised some bright spark hasn't suggested the "two timetables" ruse before now. To me it just seems obvious, but then again I read a lot of history books.

Regards, C
Cernig | Homepage | 11.30.05 - 12:02 am | #

In our discussion, I actually believe I mentioned something like that. I know I said something to the effect of "sure, establish a timetable but don't follow it." That's deception at its very core.
Mr. M | Homepage | 11.30.05 - 9:07 am | #