In 2006, when I was running to represent you in Congress, I offered a concise, clear plan on Iraq. I was the only candidate on the ballot to present a specific exit strategy from that morass.

Though that time seems so distant now, wars of American aggression were considered a bad thing. Protesters rallied in town centers on weekends. Republican incumbent Chris Shays and Democratic challenger Diane Farrell tried to win over the electorate by claiming they wanted an eventual withdrawal. Both used the word "timetable." But they only supported a timetable in principle — perhaps one arranged with Iraqi officials or depending on certain milestones, thus rendering the whole idea moot. Neither proposed an actual date. "My opponents want a timeline without a time," I said in one of the debates. "That just leaves a line."

My plan was simple: announce a specific, significant target date for full withdrawal, and then withdraw. Specifically, I called for an ultimate pullout date of July 4, 2007. "We Americans," I explained, "should not have to suffer the irony of celebrating this great day of freedom and independence while our taxes are paying troops to occupy a foreign land." We would have had 10 months to withdraw our forces in an orderly manner.

There were two common arguments against a strict deadline, adopted widely by both parties. One argument was the "kill the date-setters" theory that predicted increased violence against us as soon as we announced we were withdrawing. This theory has no logical basis. If the people know we are leaving, why would they sacrifice their lives to get rid of us when we'll be gone in a few months?

The other argument of Democrats and Republicans against setting a specific date was the "lie-in-wait" theory, predicting that a fixed deadline would lead to the insurgents to lay low for the rest of the occupation and, after we leave, instigate a civil war and assume control of the government. Well, a civil war can happen in any country at any time. We have no constitutional or moral authorization to patrol the entire world enforcing our choice of foreign governments. To prevent civil war in the Middle East permanently, we would have to annex the entire area and start killing those who wish to secede and self-govern, much as Abraham Lincoln did in the U.S. Should foreign armies have marched onto American soil in 1861 to stifle our Civil War?

Three years ago, I advocated setting a deadline. The choice of Independence Day, July 4, 2007, was intended to send a signal that the deadline would be honored, because our national pride and reputation was at risk.

Now, President Barack Obama has adopted my approach. He has promised a withdrawal of troops in July of 2011. But he has made several modifications to the plan, each of which is bad by itself, and the combination of which makes the deadline meaningless.

First, Obama is talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. By itself, this would be fine. We should bring all of our troops home from there — as well as from South Korea, Germany and everywhere else on earth. America's army is meant for America's defense, not patrolling the arbitrary Cold War relic borders of other countries. On Iraq as well, Obama has called for lowering our troop levels, but he has not set a fixed deadline.

Second, he has set a month, not a date, and it is by no means fixed. His slightest whim could push July 2011 to February 2012. This nullifies the whole point of a deadline and makes it simply a wish or a hope.

Third, many of the troops he will begin pulling out a year and a half from now will not even arrive until next year. In other words, he has set a weak deadline for a new war, not a firm deadline for lasting peace.

Where are all the protesters now? And do they at least regret voting for more wars of aggression the past two elections?

Dr. Phil Maymin is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Risk Engineering at NYU-Polytechnic Institute. The views represented are his own.