From the NY Times: “U.S. General in Iraq outlines troop cuts”
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.It’s not a Kerry-level pullout but a fairly significant cutback of more than half the troops by the end of 2007.
12 comments:
Gosh, cutting the unpopular military presence 6 or 7 weeks before a tough election? Not too transparent.
Thank God this unique and original plan doesn't represent Democratic "retreat and defeatism" (U.S. Senate, June 21).
The administration's plans have *always* included troop draw-downs in response to more Iraqi forces reaching levels of operational independance.
The Democratic calls for troop draw-downs, a la Murtha and others, have always been *independant* of the situation on the ground. There's an unsubtle message included that it's acceptable to lose, just so long as we get our troops out.
Perhaps the easiest Lefty criticism of anything Bush or the administration does is "I question the timing." Since everything has to happen sometime, and there are always Lefty concerns or policies at any given time, it's a real cheap shot. But then, I expect no less.
Ah yes, it's soooo convenient for "Lefties" to question the timing... in the SAME WEEK the GOP Senators and Representatives lined up shoulder to shoulder to reject scheduled troop withdrawals, as their official political stance for the November elections.
But those talking points, they were just standing up for the mission, right?
Perhaps someone could cite a "situation on the ground" that's changed for the betterment of Iraq's security readiness? Or one which is expected to dramatically improve by the totally coincidental and unrelated September election cycle? Or maybe someone could explain why Bush's speeches THIS MONTH have been so off-target? After all, he "talks to his generals," doesn't he?
We have audio of Bush's U-turn today:
"SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEECHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
(Good thing he "doesn't pay attention to the polls.")
When our military presence starts winding down over the next year -- which was the long-term goal from the beginning -- the liberals will shout:
1) No -- we didn't win! It was a defeat, a defeat! and
2) We Democrats led the way -- it was our idea!
Being a Democrat must be pure torment.
Military presence "winding down." Which was the long-term goal "from the beginning." Priceless, TGK! You've provided my laugh of the day and I thank you.
And those military strongholds and compounds being built across Iraq on America's dime? Those are just adventure waterparks we're giving the freedom-loving Iraqis as a "farewell present," right?
You know, since this September pullback is absolutely NOT an abrupt political ploy that invalidates everything the GOP was spinning on June 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2006. Only a dirty, tormented Lefty could possibly question that process.
First of all, Gen. Casey has submitted a plan, but it won't necessarily be "the" plan. The military plans sh!t all the time. Bush hasn't publicly endorsed this particular plan -- just expressed a general desire to wrap things up some day, and that has been his stated intent all along.
Personally, I like the September date. It sounds appropriate, and will complicate the whining/bellyacheing/backseatdriving of the Democrats a little bit. Good.
Are you referring to the new US Embassy compound? Of course we will have a presence in Iraq after the war (like we have a presence in Germany and Japan and SoKo), but that is not inconsistent with our military forces "winding down" at some point, and is not the same thing as what we are doing at the moment, which is supressing an unpopular insurgency.
Re your last point: straw man. You are free to question anything you want. Just try to be reasonable about it.
The only way the Dems could lose the chance to crow about getting Bush to change direction is if we *never* reduced troop strength.
And how likely was that?
It's only in some fantasy land where it would never ever end unless the Republicans could be induced to follow the Dem strategy of Cut and Run.
And you know, boys and girls... rejecting the call for a scheduled "no matter what" withdrawl is not the same thing as rejecting withdrawl. Nuance, kiddies! I thought y'all were supposed to be good at that.
A hearty "Get Well Soon" to all of you. It must have really hurt your noses when they got snapped off in Bush's butt, that hard and that fast.
Those sudden direction changes are murder on the talking points, too. From "cut and run" to "always the plan" and "straw man" in one news cycle, ouch. But you're doing great, really!
So are you. ;-)
And more importantly, the United States of America is doing great.
Because it's totally apparent why September 2006 will be the perfect date to pull back troops. Logistics and security are clearly so much better on the ground than they were in, say, the dark days of May 2006 or February 2006. As for December 2006, or heaven help us, the spring of 2007... obviously, that would be some kind of sick joke.
Nope, it's September 2006, writ in golden letters, there could be no other. In hindsight, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker might have put in a bid for May 2006 or sooner. But that would have missed the bigger picture: the election cycle is being terrorized by the growing homeland insurgency. As for our troops? Get cut, but don't run.
Post a Comment