Get out now?

The equipment, the contractors, the troops, etc. would make easy targets if their departure is en masse and poorly executed.

Is it really fair for the US to go into a country bomb it to shreds and say bye now. Thanks for everything? Good luck. We broke it now you fix it?

The US already did that in Afganistan using the Taliban to fight the Soviets and deserting the country with a broken promise of helping to rebuild. That tends to generate hostility towards the US. We need to make friends not enemies.

We should be withdrawing troops quickly, but safely. This whole idea
that we need troops there to stabilize the region, yet we still need
them there permanently in the style of S. Korea or Germany is
ridiculous.

I fully agree with that second point: Bush and McCain have been really aggravating with their double-talk saying "we don't want permanent bases" even as want to build very nice bases and are willing to trhow around hte idea of...permanent bases (without using that term).

Anyway, on the main point: will we necessarily be able to withdraw quickly but safely?

• What if our withdrawl triggers a political crisis in Iraq?
• What if the Iraqi government fails to keep control of the country without our presence, and rebels are attacking us as we withdraw?
• What if Iran invades?

 I'm not saying that any of these are likely, only that they are outside of our control and could determine whether:

1. We can withdraw safely.
2. Withdrawing is the best thing to do. 

In a more general sense, given all of the developments that could occur in the next couple of years, I don't think it is clear that a quick withdraw will necessarily produce a better outcome than a more prolonged presence. This is just an admission that there are some conditions under which a continued military presence will probably generate a better outcome than a quick withdraw (whether "better" is defined in terms of American geopolitical influence, regional stability, Iraqi economic development, or Iraqi lives).

...that if situations significantly change, positions may also change.  That's really the only way to answer simplified hypothetical questions, because as soon as you tie yourself down to an absolute on a hypothetical, sure enough the real world is going to present you with a complex situation where you have to do something different, and then you've "gone back on your word", "sold out", "lied" etc. etc. etc.

Let's put it this way: if Obama strayed from the phased withdrawal which he has supported all along, there'd be a darn good reason for it, it wouldn't just be on a whim.  So if you want to say that he MAY never withdraw, you might be correct on a technicality but his intent based on the current trends and the most likely range of scenarios that he will inherit as president is to proceed with his phased withdrawal plan.

K,

As I mentioned in my reply last night, I don’t see why you see problems with the structure and/or content of my question. I simply presented a list of potential…

…positions that could be Obama's position regarding what he'd do if he comes to believe that withdrawal would jeopardize stability in Iraq:

A) I will NOT delay beginning withdrawals, even if I think doing so will jeopardize stability.
B) I WOULD delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
C) I MIGHT delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
D) I WOULD delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
E) I MIGHT delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
F) I WOULD delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
G) I MIGHT delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.

Does anyone have a very good sense of which of the above is Obama's position?

For any given scenario (e.g., however one wishes to define “stability”, “jeopardy”, etc.) my list is mutually exclusive, and it is exhaustive (unless someone wishes to modify the time periods). As I’ve stated at least a couple of times, it is perfectly appropriate for one to say that Obama’s position (stated or implied) includes different answers from the above list for different types/natures/levels of “stability” or degree of jeopardy.

In any case, you’ve given me answers, and I appreciate that. I do need confirmation and clarification on some points, though.

First, as I’ve emphasized previously, I’m not asking what would be good policy, nor what you predict Obama would do. I’m asking what (if anything) is fairly clearly Obama’s position on what he would do in such scenarios, based on statements he has made either explicitly stating what he would do or providing reasonably clear implications. Please let me know if your answers all apply to that question rather than representing what you consider good policy or what you would expect Obama to do in such scenarios (which could be based on factors other than anything he’s indicated with any clarity via his statements – e.g., a guess based on your sense of his judgment, his general emphasis on the importance of withdrawal, etc.).

Second, the scenario(s) about which I’m asking do not relate to circumstances per se, but rather to outlooks. In other words, Obama can delay or not delay, and in some form or another would see various potential outcomes, with probabilities and magnitudes of stability/instability associated with each, so in my scenarios the overall stability outlook is significantly better for the “delay” course, and the “proceed (with withdrawals)” course involves some potential or likely significant instability. So when you answer for circumstances of genocide or an invasion by Iran or whatever, please confirm that you are talking not only about circumstances but about potential future developments – i.e., a scenario in which Obama sees a significantly worse overall outlook (probabilities, magnitudes) from proceeding vs. from delay. (Obviously if there IS genocide going on or if Iran HAS invaded, and if delay could mitigate/stop that situation much more than could proceeding with withdrawals per the timetable, then we are talking outlook, but the outlook could include potential/likely genocide or invasion even if neither has occurred at the time of decision on delaying/proceeding).

Third, it’s obviously up to you if you wish to get into the merits of Obama’s position, but I’m really not asking about that. I’m just asking what his position is. I certainly respect your perspective on the merits of whatever you consider his position to be, but I wouldn’t want you to think I was asking more of you than I am, and as you can tell, I’m not responding to those points because I’ve been focused on getting answers to my question.

As for your answers, I’ve taken the liberty of excerpting just the scenario description and your answers, and left out the discussion of the rationale/merits of such courses.

Scenario #1

instability directly related to the absence of strong force promoting order (i.e. caused by our withdrawal).

Answer = C. With a "Might" instead of "Would" from (B) being dependent on evidence that an alternate plan would lower instability.

First, your answer seems to be “B”, because my question presumes that he has come to believe that the outlook for stability (probabilities and magnitudes associated with potential stability/instability outcomes) would be significantly better if he delays.

So, my understanding of the above is that for your Scenario #1, Obama’s position (explicit or fairly clearly implied) is essentially “I WOULD delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.” Please confirm

Scenario #2

instability aimed at US forces due to the increased vulnerability during a withdrawal.

(C) again, but much closer to (B)… the only reason it is (C) is to deal with the unlikely case where there is simply no superior plan that lowers the risk.

I don’t understand what you’re saying about “C” vs. “B”. If there were “no superior plan that lowers the risk”, wouldn’t that make “B” more likely than “C” (i.e., more likely that he WOULD delay than that he MIGHT delay)? Also, please be clear about what you mean by “no superior plan”, or just drop that condition if it’s irrelevant in light of my clarifications of my question in this comment.

As a note, I don’t think – and I don’t think Obama or people generally are thinking – of attacks on our withdrawing troops when speaking of concerns about “stability” in Iraq vis a vis our withdrawal, so I don’t really see this scenario as relevant, but if you disagree and want to continue with it, ok.

In any case, sounds like you’re saying that Obama’s position (explicit or fairly clearly implied) is that he might NOT delay even for a few months even if he thought it would significantly reduce the vulnerability of our withdrawing troops (vulnerability to death, to be explicit). That’s what “C” means for this scenario.

Or, if his position is “B”, then Obama’s position is that he WOULD delay in the interest of reducing this vulnerability, but only for a few months, after which he would proceed with withdrawals per his timetable even if he still believes that further delay would significantly reduce the vulnerability of our withdrawing troops (vulnerability to death, to be explicit). That’s what “B” means for this scenario.

Please clarify and confirm per all of the above for Scenario #2

Scenario #3

massive level of instability that should require our intercession independent of the original invasion. i.e. Iran invading would probably require our intervention in the same way that we intervened in Kuwait during the first gulf war. Likewise Genocide should require everyone to intervene the way we should be in Darfur.

This one is really hard to answer. I'd go with (B) or (D)… I think that it would still be (B)…But… the appropriate force to stop a genocide is also almost impossible to define.

In this answer in particular I wonder if you are answering my question – what position Obama has indicated – or expressing what you think would be good policy. Please confirm.

Also please confirm that you are talking about outlooks rather than just circumstances as I’ve explained above.

Anyway, if you ARE talking about outlooks, your answer seems to be that Obama’s position is that, if he thought withdrawals per the timetable would significantly increase the likelihood of genocide (or invasion by Iran or comparable development), (1) he WOULD delay, but probably only for a few months maximum, after which he would proceed with withdrawals even if he still thought doing so would significantly increase the likelihood of genocide (or Iranian invasion, etc.), but (2) there is a lesser chance that he would delay as long as a couple of years, but after a couple of years, he would proceed with withdrawals even if he still thought doing so would significantly increase the likelihood of genocide (or Iranian invasion, etc.). Please confirm

I hope you're not finding this exchange tedious. Certainly not my intention ;)

I was just getting down into the nuts and bolts a bit. But would agree with my final analysis.

And I think you'll like my return post. :-)

There are a few other people here on SC from whom I think I generally have a good chance of getting straight answers even on touchy partisan matters.

Generally speaking on partisan/ideologically-oriented blogs (e.g., RedState), it's almost impossible, and it's nearly impossible even on Forvm, which is populated mainly (probably with a couple of exceptions) by partisans (mostly liberal/Democratic) who seem to assume the role of committed partisan spokesperson rather than engage in good-faith, responsive discussion/debate, at least on hot-button partisan topics.

And of course, in all venues, there are some people who are just not that good at following the logic of arguments, keeping principles and arguments straight, formulating logical responses, as well as appreciating the usefulness of hypotheticals and being able to engage in them logically and productively. And the result is a bunch of non sequiturs or worse that are at best time-wasters and at worst irritating time-wasters.

As for you, MissL, wear whatever shoe you think fits.