No Iraq Timetable Means No Accountability
I wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, regarding
a recent article about President Bush's refusal to set a timetable for Iraq. I've posted it here for your interest.
To the Editor (New York Times):
RE: "Bush Acknowledges Difficulties, Insisting on Fight to the End" (June 29)
The Bush administration claims that setting a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would "throw a lifeline" to the insurgency. This rationale misses the point. We won’t leave before the job is done anyway, so there's no such risk.
The purpose of the timetable is for us. It is a commitment to ourselves, crystallizing what we must accomplish and agreeing on the price we are willing to pay to achieve it. This kind of self-accountability strengthens our resolve, it does not weaken it.
As the old saying goes, "A goal without a deadline is simply a dream." Refusing to make this public commitment suggests that the administration simply dreams of a solution, and in the end, evades specific accountability for the goals and sacrifices we are making. Without a deadline, the administration has essentially declared that America is willing to stay forever, and pay any price. Are we?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home