Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> [I mean "realist" here as in "realpolitik." I don't in any way mean to
> imply that other perspectives are unrealistic.]
>
> [What's interesting about this is that it argues that setting a clear
> timetable for withdrawal -- specifically over an 18-month period -- would be
> the best course of action even from a counter-insurgency perspective.
>From the viewpoint of putting pressure on the u.s. government and
creating a mass movement, should the demands of the anti-war movement be
for this policy?
It seems to me to be the sort of argument that could/would be offered inside policy-making circles in Washingoton, D.C. but not the sort of thing that a movement should push.
In fact this almost certainly will be the policy the government resorts to as a face-saving measure when the pressure both from the resistance and from anti-war movements at home and around the world. But it would really seem to me futile for the movement to have any other demand than Bring the Troops Home NOW! Let's leave policy-wonking to the policy wonks.
Carrol