The Senate has passed legislation ordering troops to begin coming home Oct. 1...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Don't really know, don't care, but that's a typical distinction made.

Where and by whom?

[Ramo]

A quick google search doesn't get me anything, but I do see this Guardian article describing the legislation passed:

Troops could remain in Iraq after that date, but only for limited non-combat missions including anti-terror operations and training Iraqi forces.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2065279,00.html

So combat missions are defined to exlude anti-terror operations. So these ops are not prosecuted by combat troops. Whether these troops are special forces or not is besides the point.

[Ramo]

In other news:

WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

That prospect would entail a dramatically longer commitment of frontline troops, patrolling the most dangerous neighborhoods of Baghdad, than the one envisioned in legislation that passed the House and Senate this week. That vote, largely symbolic because Democrats do not have the votes to override the promised presidential veto, set deadlines that would lead to the withdrawal of combat troops by the end of March 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?ex=1335412800&en=c70bf946fc39340b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I wonder if Petraeus will toe that line (since, as I wrote above, he claimed that it'll be evident whether or not the "surge" has succeeded by the end of Summer)...

Edit: bolded to emphasize the real point

[Aeson]

I find it deplorable (yet not the least bit suprising) that they would set a date to "assess" the situation... instead of constantly re-assessing the situation so that at any given point where it is becoming clear what is actually happening, they know what's going on.

[Drake Tungsten]

Maybe the nature of the surge (which hasn't even reached full strength yet) makes it so that its effectiveness won't be clear until the end of the summer...

[Ned]

The Dems really have the power to stop the war by stopping the funding of it. If they roll over now and pay the bill once again, they cannot say that continuing the war was the sole responsibility of Bush.

[Aeson]

That date can itself only be determined by an "assessment"... so I find it hard to believe that they'd be so sure about when it should become clear, when they expressly state that they still don't know what it's effects will be.

But that's beside the point. Being inflexible about when to assess it's effects (or simply be honest with ourselves about what is happening), while lives are at stake, is akin to manslaughter.

[Drake Tungsten]

But that's beside the point. Being inflexible about when to assess it's effects (or simply be honest with ourselves about what is happening), while lives are at stake, is akin to manslaughter.

This is utterly ridiculous. I couldn't remember if it was you or Elok who weren't worth my time, but now I'm pretty sure it was you...

[Aeson]

Yah Drake, you already admitted that you can't hold your own against me. Run away.

While you're at it, go stick your head in the sand until 09/2007... who cares if it becomes readily apparent we're making a mistake until then...

[RGBVideo]

You know, if Drake is now French who gets to play an expert on France and is allowed to display blatant race-based hatred against "anglo-saxons" along with rest of the French posters, then why is anyone taking him seriously (that means answering to him with anything but a laughing smiley) in a thread about internal US politics?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by VJ
You know, if Drake is now French who gets to play an expert on France and is allowed to display blatant race-based hatred against "anglo-saxons" along with rest of the French posters, then why is anyone taking him seriously (that means answering to him with anything but a laughing smiley) in a thread about internal US politics?

Because it's much more fun to make him give in.

(And who actually takes anyone on Poly OT seriously? If that was a pre-requisite for posting, the forum would have died long ago.)

[Ned]

Actually, poly is a very interesting forum because of the divergence of views an experience of its members. We find each other both interesting and annoying in equal measure.

[Aeson]

Sure it's interesting. But that doesn't mean I presume anyone is actually how they present themselves here. The internet in general is so easy to fake a persona in, that there's simply no point in caring about who a person actually is, unless you carry that relationship into real life. You can address what they say, but the person remains behind a veil.

I don't care what's behind the veil. For all we know Drake really is French, and was just setting you all up to believe he's just pretending to be French because he pretended not to be for so long. It's stupid to care either way.

[Drake Tungsten]

why is anyone taking him seriously (that means answering to him with anything but a laughing smiley) in a thread about internal US politics?

Let's make a deal. I'll agree to comment only upon French politics if you agree to only participate in Suomithreadi. Shall we shake on it?

[Ramo]

I find it deplorable (yet not the least bit suprising) that they would set a date to "assess" the situation... instead of constantly re-assessing the situation so that at any given point where it is becoming clear what is actually happening, they know what's going on.

The bigger deal is that they're backing away from their initial assessment date (now saying that they expect the gains in September to be "limited"). It looks like an extension of Bush's "you can't judge me till I'm fossilized" accountability policy.