Everyone seems to be obsessed with the idea of withdrawing troops but I argue that the very fact that this is on the table makes wars MUCH harder to win than they normally would be. This is why.

I'll give you the example of a case I know well. When the Korean War rolled around in 1950, there came a three year long war that had a higher casualty rate than World War II. Yet there was no serious word of any kind of pull out. Even after the truce, or even upon a war's end a comprehensive pullout was never in the books, rather if there was another act of aggression from the North, there would be a full scale military response. It is that kind of message that the enemy truly thinks about and wonders if the situation can be won.
Now let's turn that on the flip side and imagine that America had a time table on troop pullout in Korea back then. The North Koreans would automatically know that American resolve was weak and that it was only a matter of time before the Americans would withdraw and that there was hope for complete victory and should continue to press. I don't think there would be a South Korea if that had been the case.
As for the Iraqis, would you side with the United States if you're not sure whether or not they'll be around the following year? Or what if there's a change in President and the new guy's not so crazy about Iraq and decides to pull everyone out? Then the militia/terrorist/patriot what have you will drive up to your door in their Nissan pickup and start pumping fresh air into your brain case. Not just you but your wife, your kids... maybe even other family members. I know for sure that I wouldn't. Not if I was a regular Iraqi dude who wanted nothing more than to go to work, bring back money and feed my family and send my kids to school.
Something to think about.

I'm not and never have been for withdrawing our troops. I think it would be the biggest mistake of the war. When times get tough in war, that's good because that usually means your just about to win.

To pull out before your mission is completed will be taken by many groups as a sign of weakness. It would leave your country open to even more terrorist attacks, with the terrorist knowing that if America attacked them in their home base, all they have to do is to fade into the background and inflict a few casualties and the cry would go out from the American people to bring their troops home.

And I don't think they'd be far off the mark.

Actually they'd be spot on.
That's what incidents like Beirut and Mogadishu did. Kill a few Americans and they'll be going home. Just drag time and they will get bored and depressed and leave. The useful idiots at home will start taking your side even! How convenient.

Absolutely spot on guys. It simply gives encouragement to the opposition, as does all the negative widely publicisied attitudes at home while hostolities are on-going and boys are fighting on the front line. The loud we will finish the job whatever crew in USA are correct in that strategy. And leading that has always been Geo W, it has to be said. He has not faltered re. the challenge.

That strategy would have left challengers feeling that it is not worth taking on USA.

As it is now, with all the lack of stomach for the job on display, the opposite is true.

During WW11 there used to be a word for any such motivation -weakening announcements.


This is an edit - Hey Redneck, while I have been busily putting together a response you have beaten me to it
and said just what I am saying but in a few accurate words!

I try to keep it concise.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Actually they'd be spot on.
That's what incidents like Beirut and Mogadishu did. Kill a few Americans and they'll be going home. Just drag time and they will get bored and depressed and leave. The useful idiots at home will start taking your side even! How convenient.

I think you are partially right but I think you have overlooked one important aspect.
People will support a mission they believe in, you don't see the as much opposition to participation in Afghanistan as you with Iraq for example because most people understand and support the reasons for involvement in Afghanistan.

It is also the reason why there were few issues with WW2, Korea and Gulf War 1 as in each case there was a clear right and wrong party where as the reasons for being in Vietnam and Iraq were not as clear cut.

Actually the causes for involvement in Vietnam and Korea are in fact identical.
They differ in the way they were fought and the fact that there was more press coverage and TV coverage in Vietnam.
Just case is a very important part of going to war and it is a key factor in Sun Tzu's Art of War as well. It is actually a lot more complicated than all that and I believe that there isn't so much a movement against the war in Afghanistan not only because it is just but because most people are fixated on Iraq.
Not only is it about just cause, it also is a reflection of the overall resolve of our societies in modern times. Just like the operation back in 93 in Somalia, which I argue probably couldn't have had a more just case for intervention, was screamed at by the public and the press as a disaster and demanded a withdrawal. I guess we can say that since interventions which are THAT just don't have half a chance, the ones that seem iffy or wrong haven't got a chance in hell.
If the war takes more than 5 weeks, the public will think it's unjust.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Actually the causes for involvement in Vietnam and Korea are in fact identical.
They differ in the way they were fought and the fact that there was more press coverage and TV coverage in Vietnam.
Just case is a very important part of going to war and it is a key factor in Sun Tzu's Art of War as well. It is actually a lot more complicated than all that and I believe that there isn't so much a movement against the war in Afghanistan not only because it is just but because most people are fixated on Iraq.
Not only is it about just cause, it also is a reflection of the overall resolve of our societies in modern times. Just like the operation back in 93 in Somalia, which I argue probably couldn't have had a more just case for intervention, was screamed at by the public and the press as a disaster and demanded a withdrawal. I guess we can say that since interventions which are THAT just don't have half a chance, the ones that seem iffy or wrong haven't got a chance in hell.
If the war takes more than 5 weeks, the public will think it's unjust.

You can look for reasons to blame "people" all you like but the fact is that people do support just causes and if you arguments are not strong enough to convince your own people that you need to defend yourself then perhaps you are wrong.
Korea, Vietnam (early), Kuwait and Afghanistan, near universal support not only from the US public but the world as a whole because all had justifiable reasons that the people understood and accepted.
Vietnam (late), Iraq, dodgy justifications and protecting even shadier regimes than those we were fighting, public support dies rapidly.