A New York Times report that is likely to be an officially-originated leak says a top general is in effect planning the initial states of a withdrawal timetable for Iraq at a time when Republicans are accusing Democrats of advocating “cut and run” (a political codeword phrase for being cowards) for calling for a withdrawal timetable:
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq’s six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.
So the timetable hinges on certain assumptions coming to fruition — but is one that would involved more Americans coming home as previously reported or predicted.
So this is actually a POSITIVE leak story.
It sounds like a quintessential classic, official leak.
On one hand, the administration is taking a hard line public stance that the U.S. will stay the course and that this is likely to go on for years. It’s political message via Karl Rove is that raising the issue of any kind of a timetable for withdrawal means you’re “cutting and running” (in other words, they’re cowards who afraid to fight — the emphasis is on the character of the people who want to have a timetable).
On the other, the unnamed government sources are getting their word out cushioned in cocoon of spin that at the precise time that this phrase has been used over and over by GOPers in Congress a top general has been working on a timetable.
This isn’t aimed at Democrats (who want a timetable or a very firm schedule that gets troops out within X timeframe) or Republicans (who will want whatever the White House wants these days and change what they want as soon as the White House changes what it wants). .
It’s being leaked to a news outlet by official sources with the spin they want to get out so the message will (a)offset any internal problems the new Iraq government may have with Iraqis who would like to see Americans leaving soon; (b)appeal to moderate and conservative Democrats and independents who may support the administration on aspects of the war but think a timetable of some sorts is not a bad idea. MORE:
General Casey’s briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the plan comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.
This is an officially created leak. Why? Because if this was OFFICIALLY announced after several weeks in which Democrats have been demonized the government would appear hypocritical and its rhetoric would seem patently political. By leaking it, it cushions the actual sourcing and finesses the spin that’s needed to soften the blow to its supporters who have been denouncing any suggestion of a timetable that a timetable IS in the works at the same time that the IDEA of one is being denounced.
The commander met this week with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Friday, General Casey and Mr. Rumsfeld met with President Bush at the White House. A senior White House official said that General Casey did not present a formal plan for Mr. Bush’s approval but rather a concept of how the United States might move forward after consulting with Iraqi authorities, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
“The recent conversations that have taken place are all designed to formulate our thinking in concert with the new Iraqi government,” said the White House official, who declined to discuss specific cuts. “What this process allows is for General Casey to engage with the new Maliki government so it can go from a notional concept to a practical plan of security implementation over the next two years.”
In short, it’s a timetable without wanting to use the word timetable.
And, NO, this is NOT the same as the proposal by some Democrats to pull out within X months. But it is now clear not only that a bigwig at the Pentagon was working on a timetable but that it wasn’t such a horrendous concept that it prevented some top government officials from leaking a story to the New York Times to get the message out via a news outlet that influences coverage elsewhere in the mainstream media that the administration is really NOT saying that the Iraq war is open ended and can go on for many years without some troops coming home. This story is aimed at showing there is some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.
If you’re in Vegas, place some money on an announcement that some troops will come home surfacing in September or October, coupled with an announcement that it’s being done because the war is being conducted so successfully. And that “cut and run” will still be used in ads against Democrats for even raising the idea of any kind of a timetable.
FOOTNOTE: If this is NOT an official leak, you’ll see an immediate effort to find the leaker and perhaps go after the Times. If it IS an official leak you won’t see any of that although the Times may be lambasted verbally. Remember that leaking has been a fine art for years in Washington. Leaks can be used by whistle blowers to expose problems or abuses AND by government and/or political officials to get information out in a way that benefits an administration in a positive way and/or scores political points.
UPDATE (limited due to time constraints): Many weblogs are reacting along ideological lines.
–One of the more original analyses comes from top conservative blogger Ed Morrissey, who decries some of the Times earlier stories but cautions on this one (and reaches one of our conclusions):
This leak appears to come from a high-placed military source, as this kind of briefing would have a small number of attendees. That tends to make a mole hunt rather quick to conduct, and the Pentagon will undoubtedly start looking very quickly for the leaker — unless they staged it themselves. The White House has faced a lot of pressure to show results in Iraq, and while it has come in a rush recently, the training of the Iraqi troops has mostly passed under the media radar. If we already have the reductions in process, the pressure from Congress to set deadlines will likely fade.
He goes on to write:
If the Pentagon felt that they needed to leak this information for political purposes, it just shows how corrosive the debate on the deployment in Iraq has become to the war effort. If not, then expect the DoD to get very serious about tracking down the leaker. In either case, the New York Times has once again specialized in publishing classified material on a story with only marginal news value.
—Josh Marshall sees the contradiction:
No leaving Iraq until 2009, the president says. But then the administration leaks word that the pull-out is in 2007. No plan — just whatever sounds best at the moment.
Against a phased withdrawal before they were for it.
They can’t keep their story straight because they don’t have any plan or sense what they’re doing.
Who can trust them to get it right after they’ve gotten it wrong so many times?
—Don Surber thinks the left and right are both boing bonkers but it’s good news.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.