It appears that the Alligator editorial board has had some difficulty in understanding the difference between a "timetable" and a "general time horizon." I would like to make an attempt to clarify these terms.
A timetable is an arbitrary, artificial plan for withdrawal that does not take into account the realities on the ground. A specific withdrawal date would encourage insurgent forces to withhold their attacks until after U.S. troops are gone. After this arbitrary withdrawal, the country will almost certainly plunge into chaos followed by the establishment of an Iranian puppet state similar to Syria.
A general time horizon, on the other hand, is a conditional withdrawal of U.S. forces that does not have a precise, arbitrary date but instead seeks to remove U.S. troops only after a broad period of time has passed during which conditions have stabilized.
I don't blame the Alligator for feeling confused; it has become common for our politicians to be purposely ambiguous when it comes to their policy proposals. For example, take Barack Obama's statements on Iraq.
In a 2004 interview, Obama said this about a timetable for withdrawal: "We've got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly, and I don't think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that." But in 2007, Obama said, "Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."
Isn't calling for the beginning of troop withdrawals now, when the reconstruction process is incomplete, tantamount to an artificial deadline? I wonder if the Alligator is also scratching their heads over Obama's "political-speak."
Edward Miller
4LS
