Talk:Friedman Unit/Archive 1

Excellent page

excellent page! thank you for the work on this thus far. the table is very effective.Ekoontz 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serious references required

Referencing blogs and fringe op-eds is not enough. You need serious references for this article. I understand that the term "Friedman unit" is fairly new and hasn't been picked up by the mainstream press yet, but seriously, the article is not sufficiently documented right now to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the table which has been built on the page (with a bunch of authors and citation) IS original research indeed. You can't use a Wikipedia page to advocate a point. You need to provide a link to a site which has done that kind of research, instead. -- Hugo Dufort 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In your comment you wrote, "Primary sources for this expression are BLOGS. Who coined this expression? Was it ever used in newspapers?" Hugo, I am sure you will not be surprised to learn that neologisms can arise on the internet and other alternative media. Their existence, prevalance, and importance is not dependent on being printed in "newspapers." Also, to answer the question about who coined the term you need only read the article. Or can a term only be coined when a newspaper reports that it has been coined? Joeljunk 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the fact that this term was coined by a blogger. However, a blog is not a very authoritative source. One would expect that if the neologism gains popularity, it will show up in newspapers, TV news, magazines, political analysis websites, columns, etc. I don't see any of these cited as references. All I see is an attempt to justify the relevance of the term by piling up examples in which it might apply (i.e., original research). Therefore, it is legitimate to wonder: Is this term too marginal to be relevant? Will it fade away in a few months? Or will it gain acceptance outside the rather limited blogging community that seems to be using it right now? -- Hugo Dufort 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003494507 for a reference to "friedman unit" in a mainstream publication. Anonymous 04:45, 13 December 2006 (PST). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.23.169.13 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I have replaced the first Atrios link [1] with the link to MediaInfo. The article is getting better. However, the example section (huge table) is still way too large. A few examples should do. We don't need to provide such a large list; if we have sufficient links to authoritative sources, we have nothing to prove, right? -- Hugo Dufort 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now we need to remove some of the examples. There are too many op-eds in there, and some of them come from the same source (which doesn't bring anything new in terms of encyclopedic content). Also, some of the link require registration. While the articles were probably freely accessible when they were "fresh", now they've been archived (and have become paying content). Thus, these links can be considered unverifiable and unusable. -- Hugo Dufort 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We need more examples from notable officials, not fewer. In fact, there's something of a contradiction in the argument that (a) we need more authoritative sources, but (b) fewer examples. Furthermore, (c) there are in fact plenty of uses of this precise phrase (as well as the concept it describes, of an ever-extending "six months"). Just google it and you'll see. I'll add some now. Finally, (d) the idea that blogs and similar online media are not yet authoritative is somewhat quaint, appearing on Wikipedia... DahmRoss 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I despise the guy, Atrios should get credit for coining the term. It was a May/June 2006 blog post of his where he referred to "so many Friedmans from now." Of course, he was commenting on the Media Matters research/collection of the Friedman quotes.

Also, I suggest we get rid of the "New Friedman Unit." That's gilding the lily and it hasnt caught on. Stephen Sherman

Agreed. Holgate 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Press? Check the sitemeter-Atrios gets over 100,000 views a day. http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s13atrios
That's more than a lot of cable news shows. There's even 10 references to it in the last FU on Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=friedman+units&type=story&sortby=relevance&search=Search&count=30&wayback=262080&wayfront=0 which gets '477,000' visits a day. http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm8dailykos 24.85.11.77 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)doug r

Seconded. There's a difference between an in-joke among limited-traffic bloggers and terminology that's widely-read, derived from an external example (the FAIR study of Friedman's columns) and has caught on. Holgate 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. See above. DahmRoss 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Too right, mate. It's even a standard expression in New Zealand. For some people here that's how they even come to know about the columnist in the first place. Using the mainstream press as a standard for when a word is a word is a ...canard, I guess. Expat Mike 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)expat mike

I'm surprised how few people seem to understand what an encyclopedia is - if it is referenced elsewhere, and not axiomatic and only internally understood, it is worthy of an entry in both a dictionary and an encyclopedia, especially one that seems to want to be an all inclusive, non-specific encyclopedia such as this. Certainly it should be presented without a POV when presented, but certainly NOT feeling it worthy of inclusion is a POV as well.24.219.173.93 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

I have to question the notablity of this so-called "Friedman Unit". It seems to me this article falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Other than the blogger who supposedly coined this term, there seems to be no authoritative sources that actually refer to this "Friedman Unit". The FAIR article merely discusses Friedman's repeated use of the six month timeframe; it does not use the term "Friedman Unit" anywhere in that article—not even a single mention. The MediaInfo link requires subscription, so I can't verify it. But this article seems to be created as a way to boost the usage of the neologism. I will consider nominating this article for deletion unless someone can explain this to me. KeL 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it appears non-notable. Go for it, KeL.--SarekOfVulcan 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "Friedman Unit" has certainly gained wide currency in the past few months. I read the Wikipedia guidelines, and I think I understand the purpose (of avoiding neologisms). But this phrase seems to fall in a gray area. I'd say leave it in. Stephen Sherman

Much as I'm a fan of the term itself, this is clearly a political neologism. This should probably be merged with Atrios. Chris Cunningham 09:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Many good reasons for keeping this. See above. It may be that the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline is in need of minor revision. DahmRoss 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Just because it is a neologism does not mean it is not well understood. The term is unambiguous. The International Astronomical Union's new definition of "planet" is more ambiguous than this. Looking at the Wikipedia guidelines, this seems to meet all the criteria for a valid article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.178.185 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

This is clearly a new economic term of art. It combines, deftly, the nexus of politics and economics within one, simple to understand concept. The concept itself, while mildly referential, is entirely valid and complies with the taxonomic structure required for any definition.

AJPlotke, 17 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.74.58 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Editor & Publisher Usage

Editor and Publisher is the widely-respected trade journal for the journalism industry. Here is one example of its use of "Friedman Unit" (the full article is subscription-only, but appears in the print edition)[2]:

>>> Friedman Finally Urges Fixed Date for U.S. Pullout

By E&P Staff

Published: December 07, 2006 12:10 AM ET

NEW YORK For many months now, Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist and author, has been ridiculed by liberal bloggers for his continual suggestions, over the past three years, that things would turn around in Iraq... in another six months. Some created what they called the "FU" or Friedman Unit to represent any six-month period. One year, for example, would be "two FUs." [emphases added]

Now Friedman, in a Friday column, has declared that it is time to set a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq.

He does this (behind the pay TimesSelect wall) after stating that while the Iraq Study Group proposals are fine, "they will only have a chance of being effective if we go one notch further and set a fixed date — now — for America to leave Iraq. [...] <<< —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DahmRoss (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Merge

AfD is always a pain, but merging is fairly easy. This isn't really notable enough to have its own article, Atrios is still pretty short, and as a neologism it'll end up getting deleted anyway if it's left. I reckon this should be merged. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I saved a copy of this locally. So, if Wiki nukes it, I will put it up on my own website. Surely Wikipedia cannot both nuke content AND claim copyrights to it. :) I mean, Microsoft could do that, but not Wikipedia, right?

Stephen Sherman

acepilots.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.154 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 March 2007

Whatever we do with the stuff you should feel free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you follow the terms of the GFDL. You can republish the whole 'pedia if you want. Haukur 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris/Thumperward, thanks for your interest in this article. After you flagged it for possible merger less than a week ago, on March 7, I see a little discussion on both sides, but no clear consensus yet. Therefore I have unmerged it from Atrios, for further discussion. Please note this may take some lengthy discussion given how frequently it has already been cited, and the reflections on neologisms (which will take some time to delve into). As noted in the article, there are 15,000 Google hits for "Friedman unit(s)", and usage in several major magazines. This widespread adoption of usage needs to be addressed by anyone who favors deleting or merging this page on neologism grounds. Every rule has its exception(s), and this may be one for neologisms. Thank you in advance for talking this over with the other parties involved, here on the discussion page, and then disengaging for a while, rather than reverting. --Ross DahmRoss 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the Wikipedia policy guideline on "no original research" was changed in February 2007 to a policy of "attribution." In a nutshell: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." DahmRoss 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also note the the restrictions on neologisms are designed to prevent the creation of new terms through Wikipedia, not describing existing uses (from secondary sources). This article does not "define or introduce new terms or provide new definitions of existing terms," it simply reports on an existing neologism with widespread adoption. "Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Attribution," which this article does. The primary source for the term was (it seems) Atrios. The secondary sources include the FAIR article, the Editor & Publisher article, and references in the journals I listed in the article after the proposed merge. This page is a tertiary article. Thanks again. DahmRoss 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That a neologism's first Google hit is Wikipedia is a red flag in itself. I'm prepared to kick back for a while, but even as a fan of the term I don't think giving it its own article is a good idea. That it has a lot of hits is understandable given that it was coined by the proprietor of one of the most widely-read political blogs on the Internet. I moved after a week because there has been no discussion in a week on the appropriate talk page. I'll be back in a week. Chris Cunningham 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, by that logic (first Google hit is Wikipedia is a red flag in itself), then Internet and wiki, among many thousands of other terms, would also be red-flagged and marked for merger. In fact, why is wiki not a neologism, according to WP:NEO -- in fact one perpetrated by Wikipedia itself? I suspect there are many terms used by popular bloggers that do not catch on; this one did. I see a variety of discussion during the interim week, e.g. comments by Joeljunk, several different IPs, and Stephen. I've put this on my Watch list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BipDeBop (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 March 2007

Quotes to be added -- please help!

The following quotes need to be added. This is time consuming (unless someone can write an automated script). Please cut-and-paste from here, deleting from here as we go. N.B. there is some duplication, so CTRL-F search before adding a quote. Thanks! DahmRoss 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---> "I think the next few months will be crucial." July 3, 2003 Senator Pat Roberts (Republican - Kansas)

"[In Iraq and Afghanistan] we may be going through a series of weeks and months that are crucial to the future history of freedom and stability." July 10, 2003 Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat - Missouri) Speaking at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee

[Question: When you speak of victory, how do you define it today in Iraq?] MCCAIN: Probably when the people of Iraq are governing themselves. That's probably the best benchmark, and that probably could happen sooner rather than later, as far as being directly related to the return of the basic services – the electricity, the water, the sanitation, the law enforcement – those kinds of things. … And I'm not sure how long it would be, but I don't think that we have time on our side. I think it's critical that we act quickly by sending more troops there. And if not, we run the risk of the Iraqi people turning against us. [Question: Are you thinking 6 to 12 months? Or do you think that's dreaming at this point?] MCCAIN: I don't know because I don't know how quickly we're going to act in the form of sending troops. I don't know how quickly we're going to be able to provide them with the security. So, it's sort of up to us. But I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical. September 10, 2003 Sen. John McCain (Republican - Arizona) Speaking on CNN’s “American Morning”

“The next few months will be critical as the new government must establish security, continue to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, and prepare the Iraqi people for national elections scheduled for January 2005.” July 22, 2004 Senator Richard G. Lugar (Republican – Indiana) Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

“There are rare occasions when two distinct geopolitical processes reach a pivot point at the same time, that precise place where the evolution of a process takes a critical turn. Last week saw three such points. In Iraq, the security network around the guerrilla leadership appeared to be breaking wide open.” March 1, 2005 George Friedman, Stratfor

“As the political process evolves, further government victories could be in the offing. Intense negotiations on the formation of the Cabinet, involving the United Iraqi Alliance, Kurdish List, Sunnis and other factions, have already begun. With Sunnis incorporated into a new government, progress on the political front likely will lead to further success on the battlefield as U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to keep pressure on the insurgents with raids, arrests and all-out offensive operations. These developments ultimately will support the U.S. strategy of turning the combat burden over to an emboldened and maturing Iraqi army.” March 23, 2005 Stratfor

“Washington has moved beyond the military stage of the U.S.-jihadist war and is now in the phase of negotiated settlements.” April 6, 2005 Stratfor

“This attack probably will be instrumental in turning the Iraqis against the militants, especially the transnational jihadists who are not only seen as using the general insurgency in Iraq for their cause (which has very little to do with the Sunni community's grievances or Iraqi nationalism), but now seem to have reached the point where they will not shirk from killing children as part of their attack plans.” July 13, 2005 Stratfor

“I think the next 18 months are crucial." July 18, 2005 General Barry R. McCaffrey, retired Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

“I have long been invested with ensuring the development of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. We are nearing the resolution of that process, and the next months will be critical.” August 4, 2005 Ambassador John Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Statement to the Security Council

“But the fact is these next six months are going to be very critical in Iraq, not just the constitution writing, referendum, the election, but also within that six months' period, we're going to see whether the Iraqis are really going to be capable of defending themselves, governing themselves and supporting themselves.” August 18, 2005 Senator Chuck Hagel (Rep- Nebraska) Speaking on CNN’s “Situation Room”

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election – that's my own feeling – let alone the presidential one." September 25, 2005 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on NBC's “Meet the Press”

“The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens” September 29, 2005 General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

"… Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time." September 28, 2005 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“And the developments over the next several months will be critical – as General Casey and General Abizaid and the secretary made very clear over the course of last week – as the constitutional referendum in the mid part of this month, the general elections in mid-December and then the subsequent formation of a new government all take place.” October 5, 2005 Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, Former Commander, Multi-National Transition Command Iraq and NATO Training Mission Iraq News Briefing

As always, whenever the Bush administration helps to pull off an election in Iraq, you have to hand it to them. Poor job on occupation, no doubt, but this thing keeps muddling through. … Meanwhile, a lot of Sunnis are shifting from fighting the system altogether to working within the political process. This is crucial. … Iraq is doing just fine given all poorly planned occupation (F to the neocons, C+ to the officers doing their best in a crappy situation on the ground). October 17, 2005 Thomas P. M. Barnett

“We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict. …

“To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. …

“To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. …” October 26, 2005 Senator John Kerry (Democrat – Mass) Speech at Georgetown University

“And we're seeing a lot of them [officials from the Iraqi government] because this is a critical time in Iraq going into the elections, and it is very important that these elections produce an outcome, that it reflects the will of the Iraqi people, that results in a government – that is broadly based, drawing from all elements of the Iraqi society, that gets stood up quickly and is a strong government that can take the kinds of difficult, economic and security decisions that the new government is going to have.” November 10, 2005 Steve Hadley, National Security Advisor Comments at White House Press Briefing

"We've got, I think, six months." Nov. 17, 2005 Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia) Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

“Instead, we need to refocus our attention on our mission — of our mission on preserving America’s fundamental interests in Iraq. And there are two of them, in my view. One, we must ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not before the war — emphasize “was not before the war” — a haven for terrorists, a jihadist stronghold. And we must do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that runs the risk of turning into a regional war. To accomplish that more limited mission and to begin redeploying our troops responsibly, it seems to me we have to make significant, measurable progress toward three goals, and you only have about the next six months to demonstrate that progress.” November 21, 2005 Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat - Delaware) Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations

“What the debate is telling us is that we have come to a defining moment in the war and in U.S. policy toward the war. … The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. …” November 21, 2005 George Friedman of Stratfor

“I served in the last year of World War II in the Navy. Franklin D. Roosevelt did just exactly that. In his fireside talks, he talked with the people, he did just that. I think it would be to Bush's advantage. It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public, and we've got to stay firm for the next six months. It is a critical period, as Joe and I agree, in this Iraqi situation to restore full sovereignty in that country and that enables them to have their own armed forces to maintain their sovereignty. …

[Question: “What happens if not enough Iraqis step forward to defend their country?”]

“At that point then we have to come to the realization that the program has not met the target and we have to determine what we're going to do. I would not want to posture what that decision would be. You'll have to wait. You shouldn't speculate. We'll have to wait for those six months.” November 27, 2005 Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia) Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press”

“But it was necessary for the president to go out and reinforce to our troops and the other coalition forces and to the world that we have a resolve in these next four to six months in Iraq which are critical to bring about achievement of our goals. … We should not at this time in these critical four to six months be worrying about a timetable to withdraw or even talking about it.” November 30, 2005 Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia) PBS “Online Newhour”

"[The Iraq elections are] necessary, not sufficient … [the] next six months are going to tell the story. Two important things. What’s the government going to look like? If it’s Mr. Mahdi who ends up representing the SCIRI Party, who’s aligned with Iran, then we got a real problem. December 18, 2005 Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (Democrat - Delaware) Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together." December 18, 2005 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election – you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it." December 20, 2005 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on PBS's Charlie Rose Show

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it – and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful." December 21, 2005 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“We have reached a crucial test in Iraq. … Whatever the explanation, this is the crucial moment. The elections were held and a political track was set. If this offensive derails the negotiations, it will be a defining moment in the war. If the negotiations go forward anyway – for any of the reasons discussed above – then the probability of a drawdown in the war in 2006 is very real. In the end, the reasons for the offensive are less clear than its potential significance. As they say, this is it.” January 6, 2006 Stratfor

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand." January 23, 2006 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on the Oprah Winfrey Show

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out." January 31, 2006 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on CBS; program is uncertain and not been verified.

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq." March 2, 2006 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on NBC's “Today”

“Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, told the Security Council in an open briefing this morning that the next six months in Iraq are going to be critical.” March 15, 2006 http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=522

“If there is ever going to be an end game in Iraq, we are now in it. Operation Swarmer, launched Thursday, seemed designed to attack jihadists in the Sunni regions. The key to the U.S.-Sunni conversation has been getting the Sunnis into the political process and, as a result, getting the Sunnis to help liquidate the jihadists. If Swarmer was launched on the basis of Sunni intelligence, and if that intelligence turns out to be accurate, it will be a key event in recent Iraqi history. Those are big "ifs," of course. At the same time, if the Sunnis are joining the political process, then it is time for Iran to negotiate its final price on Iraq, and that appears now to be happening. Taken together, this is not the end, but the beginning of the end game, and success is not guaranteed.” “The Beginning of the End Game” Mar 17, 2006 Stratfor

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us." April 23, 2006 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on “CNN Late Edition with Wold Blitzer”

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months – probably sooner – whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out." May 11, 2006 Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Speaking on MSNBC's “Hardball”

“We would say that the next six weeks, rather than months, will show us where things are.” “Core Issues in Iraq” May 22, 2006 Stratfor

“The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency – or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the deal holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful. Thus, we are at a break point – at least for the Americans.” “Break Point” May 23, 2006 George Friedman, Stratfor

“The next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war. If the government fails to achieve this, it will have lost its opportunity.” June 7, 2006 Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq Interviewed in Der Spiegel

“Second, international oil companies have been waiting for two things before investing in the Iraqi oil complex: a domestically chosen, internationally acceptable representative government, and an end to the insurgency. The first has happened; the second may finally be in sight.” “Iraq: The Implications of Al-Zarqawi's Death” June 08, 2006 Stratfor

“If we are right and this is the tipping point, then things just tipped toward a political settlement. This will become clearer over the next few days. Violence will certainly not disappear, but it should reduce itself rather rapidly if the Sunni and Shiite leadership have put out the word. We thought this was the week for something to happen, and something has. Now to find out if it was what we were waiting for, and to find out if it will work.” Jun 09, 2006 “Al-Zarqawi and the Tipping Point” Stratfor

“This is a decisive period for everyone and everyone knows it. The next six months will determine the future of Iraq.” October 5, 2006 General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq Official statement after a 39-nation meeting in Warsaw to discuss “the challenges facing Iraq and the US-led coalition."

"Time is short, level of violence is great and the margins of error are narrow. The government of Iraq must act. The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon and the citizens of the United States that it is deserving of continued support. The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services." September 19, 2006 Lee Hamilton, former Congressman (Democrat – Indiana), member of the Iraq Study Group

“The next six months are likely to be critical in determining whether the situation in Iraq turns worse or whether we may yet salvage a measure of political stability that addresses our long-term security interests in the region.“ Rep. Mark Udall (Democrat - Colorado) June 22, 2006

The above are copied from: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_series_2006_part_I.htm

--

"You only have about the next six months." Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Nov. 21, 2005

"We've got, I think, six months." Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Nov. 17, 2005

"This is a critical time in Iraq." National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Nov. 10, 2005

"We are entering a make-or-break six-month period." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Oct. 26, 2005

"The developments over the next several months will be critical." Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, Oct. 5, 2005

"The next months will be critical." U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton, Aug. 4, 2005

"I think the next 18 months are crucial." Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, July 18, 2005

"I think the next nine months are critical." U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, June 29, 2005

"I will say unequivocally today that what the administration does in these next fewd days will decide the outcome of Iraq." Kerry, Jan. 30, 2005

"The next few months will be critical." Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), July 22, 2004

"Iraq now faces a critical moment." President Bush, May 24, 2004

"The next three-to-six months will be critical." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sept. 10, 2003

"We may be going through a series of weeks and months that are crucial." Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), July 10, 2003

"I think the next few months will be crucial." Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), July 3, 2003

The above quotes are from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901283_pf.html

This is tantamount to copyvio. Talk pages are not intended to host copyrighted material while it is referenced. Chris Cunningham 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)