A lot of talk about "signals" lately. Signals to the enemy. Signals to the troops. Anyone who has read Sy Hersh's 1982 book on Kissinger, Nixon, and Vietnam, The Price of Power (out of print, unfortunately), should be extremely wary of military action as a communication medium. We should always ask whether the signal we're sending is the same one being received by the other side.

Force is sometimes necessary to achieve military, political, and strategic objectives. It can also be an effective complement to diplomacy. But in all these contexts, the connection to the desired aims must be specific and explicit, rather than general and vague. Once you adopt the demonstration of resolve as your aim, you have put yourself in a box and will have a hard time getting out.

Which brings me to the critique of a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. If we announce one, supposedly, our adversaries can just wait us out. Okaaaay... And if we leave it open-ended, they'll do what? Insurgencies are famous for being able to sustain themselves over long periods. I think we've got something backwards here. No matter how you slice it, the longer timeframe plays to the other side's advantage, not ours. Timeline or no timeline, either way the insurgents can wait us out. After all, they live there.