Now, let’s get this straight: Centrists, Moderates, Democrats and independent-thinking Republicans who posed tough questions about Iraq were guilty of undercutting the troops and wanted to “cut and run” while all of THIS is going on within the Bush administration:
Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.
Then take the LA Times piece and look at this from Times Online:
PRESIDENT BUSH is planning a major pullout of US troops from Iraq amid rising opposition to the war on Capitol Hill and across America.
After a fortnight in which the political debate has rapidly moved from how to fight the war to how best to get out of Iraq, the White House is looking at reducing troop levels by at least 60,000 next year.
Confirming the worst fears of the war’s conservative supporters, who argue that more troops are needed to defeat the insurgency, senior military officials made clear yesterday that the Bush Administration’s goal is to cut troop levels from 160,000 to below 100,000 by the end of 2006.
Then place that within the context of the LAT story:
In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.
The administration’s pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.
In other words: this policy was NOT dried-in-cement and there was some flexibility. But rather than get all sides together and try and hammer out what’s good for U.S. long-range goals, what’s best for the troops in the field, the administration wants to do it its way — which is plan NOW for withdrawal.
Keep in mind that the Los Angeles Times could not do a story like this without (a) sourcing and (b) confirmation. A reporter sitting in a Starbucks sipping a latte isn’t how it’s done. Or the internal deliberations and real intent of the administration is no secret in Washington. Either way, this info coming out means some folks in the administration WANT it to come out. MORE:
It also follows agreement this week among Iraqi politicians that the U.S. troop presence ought to decrease…..The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners. The approach also tracks the thinking of some centrist Democrats, such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior representative of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Some analysts say the emerging consensus might have less to do with conditions in Iraq than the deployment’s long-term strain on the U.S. military. And major questions about the readiness of Iraq’s fledgling security forces remain, posing risks for any strategy that calls for an accelerated American withdrawal.
The long-term strain is a serious issue — a dilemma for policy makers because they must balance arguments for staying versus what the massive U.S. force in Iraq means to American military preparedness for crises elsewhere. But the political implications of this Times story nearly trump the military ones.
The Bush administration has insisted that setting any kind of even nebulous date for a withdrawal encourages the enemy to hold out and get even bolder. Translation: it has insinuated that by setting a timetable more American military could be killed. And it turned this into a partisan jihad, going after one political party when even some members of the GOP are voicing increasing doubts.
Then consider this. The Times article was either done with some administration source cooperation, or the internal deliberations of the administration are leaking out enough so that the sources for this story feel confident to help the Times firm it up.
There are two issues here (1) the issue of withdrawal and (2) the fact that those who have suggested it’s time to think about withdrawal have been demonized with the suggestion that they are in effect unpatriotic and don’t care about the troops in the field while the administration is planning to do that right now but (the bottom line) for political reasons does not want to seem to be agreeing with its critics…so it has had high officials out on the hustings demonizing them.
What does this mean? Even if the administration pulls a large number of troops back next year, it will be a polarizing issue. The administration won’t get credit on the left (since it appears to be planning the withdrawals amid southward polls and increasing loss of elite support) and the non-lock-step conservatives will be upset on the right (so much for doing whatever it takes to transform the Middle East).
And what happens if it’s doing so amid great bloodshed in Iraq? Will some folks who genuinely believe the U.S. must stay in Iraq as long as necessary still stick with the administration or break with it — figuring it’s an administration more attuned to political expediency than one adhering to a policy so firmly stated and so easily jettisoned?
A CROSS-SECTION OF OTHER VOICES ON THIS STORY:
While drawing down 40k of 160k troops over the next year is certainly not cutting and running, I think it is pretty clear this decision is being based on domestic political considerations rather than facts on the ground.
Which, of course, makes this administration no better than the cynical Democrats who have been using this issue for their own political reasons. Worse, some might argue, since this administration led us into this war, and now seems unwilling to win it.
We’re now hearing, from Condi Rice among others, that the state of readiness of the Iraqi troops is suddenly improving so remarkably that we’ll be able to begin “standing down” because their forces are “standing up” now. I’m sure the more cynical among you might already suspect that this is being done for political expediency more than any startling improvement in Iraq’s readiness. It seems to me, however, that you don’t really need to be all that cynical to feel that way.
WHEN DOVES CRY the war has been a disaster, they are attacked as fools. When former hawks say it’s time for a change, they are charged as traitors by the likes of Schmidt and Coldsore Coulter. When can we expect the attack dogs of the Bush administration to attack the Bush administration for its cowardly cut and run ways? The last hawk Bush now prepares to fly from what he said before. Will it fly or is what flies
bullshitchanged policy?
—SCCDP Blog: “Rather than cheer this development, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth simply because these plans were being made all while the vicious rhetoric about “cowards” who would “cut and run” and “bow to leftist extremists like Michael Moore” was flying out of the mouths of Administration tools everywhere. It’s the hypocrisy, as always, that really gets to me.”
—QandO:
We just had the Democrats, when forced to go on the record, refuse to vote to get the troops out of Iraq immediately. I’m not sure what enormous pressure is being brought to bear by them. Perhaps, instead, it is the Republicans bringing such pressure, seeing their Congressional approval rating below that of the President’s (and don’t laugh Democrats, your poll numbers are below those of Congressional Republicans). Maybe it is the Republicans who are putting the pressure on the administration.
So while it may be a convergence of opinion, it is an absolutely coincidental convergence of that opinion with the reality that the troop withdrawal being announced has been planned for quite a while.
—Unclaimed Territory: “…the Administration will not be able to prematurely withdraw from Iraq without provoking a huge backlash from the formidable segment of the pro-war Right which cares more about their ideological goals and beliefs than they do about the short-term political considerations of either the Republican Party or George Bush.”
—Mahablog: “In other words, he’s going to declare victory so the troops can go home. Which is, of course, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (snark) from “cutting and running.â€? And I’m predicting now that the “two-year withdrawal periodâ€? will be considerably shorter than two years.”
—Rising Hegemon: “The situation in Iraq is worse than ever, we haven’t fixed it; we can’t fix it. But to admit that, C Plus Augustus would have to admit reality sucks, and he’s a failure. So, naturally, more people must die.”
The simple fact is that the Administration itself is preparing to withdraw significant fractions of our troops from Iraq. Even supporters have cause to question the motivation therein. The position of most Democrats, that a phased and benchmark-driven withdrawal is necessary, has been both vilified by the Administration (including the Vice-President) even as they prepare to implement largely the same plans. If there was a real will to succeed, the Democrats would be brought to the table and a bipartisan effort at formulating a withdrawal timetable or benchmark set would be made. Such an effort, instead of attack-dog postures as usual, would create a genuine feeling that there is both a commitment to win and a sincere understanding of the pressures on the home front.
—DCeit: “Isn’t it amazing how fast the Iraqi troops are now becoming ‘ready’?”
—Ink And Paper (Canada):
Ok, maybe I was a little off on the “within 6 months” prediction. It appears that the bush administration is going to officially kick off the “Iraqi Troops are Ready” marketing plan as early as this upcoming Wednesday.
I admit that I hadn’t considered the idea that a main reason for troop withdrawal might center around the concern over the strain placed upon the US military. I suppose that makes perfect sense though, especially when one looks at the missed Army recruiting target numbers and the lack of current soldiers “re-upping.”