Is Bush going to withdraw early?
The are rumors flying around washington and web logs that Bush JUNIOR will be withdrawing troops from iraq in March of next year.
Here's some links:
Some of you may recall that the OMB said that in essence, all we can afford in both money and troop rotation/fatigue is until march of next year.
What this probably means, if true, is that we might see a troop reduction in '04, greater then predicted. Of course the U.S. has to pull out eventually but not because JUNIOR's polls are sinking.
Would he withdraw with if iraq is still in chaos come march?
Does he have no intention of this and just using leaks to offset that OTHER LEAK he refuse to take a proactive route on?
Does he honestly expect the UN to come in fill the void?
Does anyone really believe that by march, the mess this admin got us into will be significantly better?
Will he leave the region without getting saddam hussein just like his father?
Or maybe he will "catch" saddam in march and claim victory and accelertate the withdraw. Chaos be damned.
At what rate (troop withdraw) and what state (iraq chaos) could he withdraw troops next year without it looking like a political maneuver?
Of course, these are runors and of course there have alway been plans to withdraw but what if these rumors mean that he is conteplating the acceleration of this withdraw more for political reasons then for a better iraq?
If so then god, allah, and the easter bunny bless us all...
Here's some links:
Quote:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002522.html
Just to make my thoughts crystal clear: it wouldn't surprise me if the Bushies declared victory and started pulling out early next year. Unlike Bush's admirers, I view him as a strongly poll-driven man who undertakes only policies that he thinks are widely popular and risk free. If public support for Iraq goes in the tank, I think he's the kind of person who would indeed cut and run.
....
....
So obviously something is going on, and the idea of an early pullback from Iraq is Topic A among Washington insiders at the moment.
I'm still not sure myself. There are certainly a lot of reasons to suspect that the administration is thinking of withdrawing: declining public support, increasing fatalities, growing fear that we can't win a long-term guerrilla war, and mounting strain on the military, especially around March of next year when troop rotations will reduce our strength in Iraq whether we like it or not.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/102803A.html
Bad enough that anti-war protesters -- who were terribly, terribly concerned about the plight of Iraqis before we invaded -- are now staging demonstrations to urge us to pull out immediately now that we're the only thing standing between those Iraqis and anarchy. But there are actually rumors that the White House is contemplating accelerating our departure, which seems lunatic to even discuss when the country doesn't appear to have a functioninganything.
http://www.thehill.com/news/102903/gopunity.aspx
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002138.html
Second, in various conversations yesterdayI was struck by how similarly many Democrats and many neocons in (and in the orbit of) the administration are viewing the situation in Iraq. Or, at least one key aspect of it, one key fear
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp...iest102903.htm
Dana Priest: Extending tours would considered over the draft. What a political problem that would create for Bush. The DOD has two choices really by the spring. They pull out, declare victory for having routed a dictator and let the region sort it out (which I'd bet would be awfully bloody and destabilizing). Or they declare war again, get the internationals in like they refused before (with enough bribes, I mean contracts, anything is possible). Let's hope things get better between now and then, but it's not going that way.
Washington, D.C.: What would happen in Iraq if America brought its troops back, as the ANSWER protestors called for last weekend?
Dana Priest: Civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, Syrians at the minimum.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct18.htm
Reduction in U.S. Troops Eyed for '04
Metz, who is traveling in Iraq, told reporters Friday that he expects U.S. troops to remain in the country until at least 200
...by mid-2005 the number of U.S. troops would be as low as 40,000.
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002522.html
Just to make my thoughts crystal clear: it wouldn't surprise me if the Bushies declared victory and started pulling out early next year. Unlike Bush's admirers, I view him as a strongly poll-driven man who undertakes only policies that he thinks are widely popular and risk free. If public support for Iraq goes in the tank, I think he's the kind of person who would indeed cut and run.
....
....
So obviously something is going on, and the idea of an early pullback from Iraq is Topic A among Washington insiders at the moment.
I'm still not sure myself. There are certainly a lot of reasons to suspect that the administration is thinking of withdrawing: declining public support, increasing fatalities, growing fear that we can't win a long-term guerrilla war, and mounting strain on the military, especially around March of next year when troop rotations will reduce our strength in Iraq whether we like it or not.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/102803A.html
Bad enough that anti-war protesters -- who were terribly, terribly concerned about the plight of Iraqis before we invaded -- are now staging demonstrations to urge us to pull out immediately now that we're the only thing standing between those Iraqis and anarchy. But there are actually rumors that the White House is contemplating accelerating our departure, which seems lunatic to even discuss when the country doesn't appear to have a functioninganything.
http://www.thehill.com/news/102903/gopunity.aspx
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002138.html
Second, in various conversations yesterdayI was struck by how similarly many Democrats and many neocons in (and in the orbit of) the administration are viewing the situation in Iraq. Or, at least one key aspect of it, one key fear
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp...iest102903.htm
Dana Priest: Extending tours would considered over the draft. What a political problem that would create for Bush. The DOD has two choices really by the spring. They pull out, declare victory for having routed a dictator and let the region sort it out (which I'd bet would be awfully bloody and destabilizing). Or they declare war again, get the internationals in like they refused before (with enough bribes, I mean contracts, anything is possible). Let's hope things get better between now and then, but it's not going that way.
Washington, D.C.: What would happen in Iraq if America brought its troops back, as the ANSWER protestors called for last weekend?
Dana Priest: Civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, Syrians at the minimum.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct18.htm
Reduction in U.S. Troops Eyed for '04
Metz, who is traveling in Iraq, told reporters Friday that he expects U.S. troops to remain in the country until at least 200
...by mid-2005 the number of U.S. troops would be as low as 40,000.
Some of you may recall that the OMB said that in essence, all we can afford in both money and troop rotation/fatigue is until march of next year.
What this probably means, if true, is that we might see a troop reduction in '04, greater then predicted. Of course the U.S. has to pull out eventually but not because JUNIOR's polls are sinking.
Would he withdraw with if iraq is still in chaos come march?
Does he have no intention of this and just using leaks to offset that OTHER LEAK he refuse to take a proactive route on?
Does he honestly expect the UN to come in fill the void?
Does anyone really believe that by march, the mess this admin got us into will be significantly better?
Will he leave the region without getting saddam hussein just like his father?
Or maybe he will "catch" saddam in march and claim victory and accelertate the withdraw. Chaos be damned.
At what rate (troop withdraw) and what state (iraq chaos) could he withdraw troops next year without it looking like a political maneuver?
Of course, these are runors and of course there have alway been plans to withdraw but what if these rumors mean that he is conteplating the acceleration of this withdraw more for political reasons then for a better iraq?
If so then god, allah, and the easter bunny bless us all...
Comments
UPDATE: Reader lt writes in:
If you want to know how Bush will make it look like they're pulling the troops out of Iraq, but not actually do it, read what I wrote to a friend on Oct 9, 2003:
I strongly suspect that Bush's recent move to bring "control" of the whole Iraq mess into the White House and give it to the clearly less than capable and very un-military Condi Rice is the first shot in a one year plan that will go something like this: they'll pressure the Iraq Governing Council to spit out a "constitution" by early next spring. They will hold some sort of fake "election" in the early summer. Along about August, Bush will declare that our forces have been "victorious" against the forces of evil, that Iraq is "stable," and that "our troops are coming home." TV screens beginning the week before the Republican convention until November will be filled with shots of returning troops being welcomed by loved ones. Sometime in October, they?ll bring back the remnants of an actual division or brigade ? civilians don?t know the difference and couldn?t care less -- and Bush will be head cheerleader for a parade in some state he?s behind in. By the end of October, there will be a far more sober "mission accomplished" photo op, maybe at Arlington, ?honoring the brave? who gave their lives, and Bush will gravely announce that our job is done and our troops are continuing to return home, and the TV screens will show yet even more teary-eyed wives being hugged by returning troops...
Meanwhile, since no one will be doing an actual, on-the-ground count, there wil still be 100,000 or so troops in Iraq and another 25,000 or so parked in Kuwait and another 15,000 or so in the region stationed at Air Force bases and on ships in the Gulf.
The whole thing will be a ?reality? TV show scripted by Rove ? ?Survivor? for the political classes, ?Fear Factor? for the troops hired as extras still facing daily attacks.
Did anyone watch the press conference yesterday?
A reporter stood up and ask if there would be less troops in iraq this time next year.
Bush JUNIOR responed that he was not going to answer that "trick" question.
Dickhead doesn't mind sending troops over there on a lie, but when it comes to answering a question that many family members of troops in iraq would like to know he says he won't answer that "trick" question...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Or maybe he will "catch" saddam in march and claim victory and accelertate the withdraw. Chaos be damned.
And let the good oil go to waste? Doubtful.
But it would prove that Bush is just as craven as Kerry and Edwards, as if that needed proving.
Originally posted by Beige_G3
American troops will be there for a long, long time. The can of worms is open and there is no turning back.
Agreed. 2006 or 2007 is proabaly valid time frame (at least) probably more like south korea in the long run...
Originally posted by Beige_G3
American troops will be there for a long, long time. The can of worms is open and there is no turning back.
American troops will be there . . . it is in the Pax Americana document that laid the groundwork for the war (as well as, possibly, the blind-eye to terror that allowed 911) it is in the document and those who wrote the document are the real leaders of this admin: Rummy, Cheney, Wolfwithoutwits, and Perl etc. . . The document states that we should have a permanent presense in teh region after the expression of real military force . .
hmmm?!?! . . . . considering that the reasons for this war were shown as flimsy pretexts does the issue of this document (still available on the web) prove telling?
and why aren't more people questioning this?
I tend to think those who are demanding that our troops come home aren't thinking too straight about the situation. Doesn't matter how things got here, here we are.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Too late to take out bat and ball and go home dontcha think? IMO, It would be even more irresponsible to just leave Iraq in this state than to continue with this half-assed police state and the move towards Iraq self-governance.
I tend to think those who are demanding that our troops come home aren't thinking too straight about the situation. Doesn't matter how things got here, here we are.
agreed.
The annual Arkansas Poll from the University of Arkansas shows Bush is very vulnerable in the state. MoE +/- 3.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as president?
2001
Approve 87%
Disapprove 9%
2002
Approve 61%
Disapprove 32%
2003
Approve 47%
Disapprove 46%
Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?
2001
Republican 27%
Democrat 33%
Independent 32%
2002
Republican 28%
Democrat 33%
Independent 33%
2003
Republican 24%
Democrat 38%
Independent 31%
And from Talkingpointsmemo.com
"First, though the administration seems like itÕs in disarray over Iraq, I believe the internal disarray and in-fighting is much more pronounced than is now apparent. Much more.
Second, in various conversations yesterday I was struck by how similarly many Democrats and many neocons in (and in the orbit of) the administration are viewing the situation in Iraq. Or, at least one key aspect of it, one key fear.
At the American Progress conference yesterday I sat in on a press roundtable Q&A with John Podesta and Sandy Berger. Berger said his greatest fear was that we would withdraw from Iraq prematurely.
I heard this anxiety expressed by a lot of people at the conference. The concern is that the politicals at the White House will dictate a hasty and potentially disastrous withdrawal from Iraq --- one engineered not to create a long-term good outcome in the country, but to create a very specific short-term benefit, to eliminate or reduce the presidentÕs political vulnerability on the issue in the fall of 2004.
The neocons seem to share that anxiety in spades."
Originally posted by Beige_G3
American troops will be there for a long, long time. The can of worms is open and there is no turning back.
American troops have already been there for a long, long time.
Cheers
Scott
It's going to take longer than necessary because they didn't plan on it being hard... and they thought the pentagon could handle all aspects of it... they ignored the state department... which wanted to plan for worse case scenarios... but they never expected the oil infrastructure to be so so shabby... and they had no plan to prevent looting... which may have done more damage in some places than the bombing did.
They may have a schedule to get out... but they have no strategy.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Actually in terms of nation building.. it's been a short time... but usually when you're nation building... you're not being shot at and blown up... those things are supposed to be taken care of BEFORE you reconstruct... you're also supposed to have your allies lined up too.
It's going to take longer than necessary because they didn't plan on it being hard... and they thought the pentagon could handle all aspects of it... they ignored the state department... which wanted to plan for worse case scenarios... but they never expected the oil infrastructure to be so so shabby... and they had no plan to prevent looting... which may have done more damage in some places than the bombing did.
They may have a schedule to get out... but they have no strategy.
No. My point was that there's been a sizable American presence in the Gulf region since before the *first* Gulf War. My point is that we will never, ever leave the region.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Too late to take out bat and ball and go home dontcha think? IMO, It would be even more irresponsible to just leave Iraq in this state than to continue with this half-assed police state and the move towards Iraq self-governance.
I tend to think those who are demanding that our troops come home aren't thinking too straight about the situation. Doesn't matter how things got here, here we are.
I think that Bush has poor judgment and questionable morals and I did not support the war. That said, I agree with the essence of BuonRotto's post. I do not think that Bush's reasons for staying are noble, but whether noble or not, I think that the US should stay, and will stay.
On the other hand, I also think that direct and substantial UN involvement in key decisions and management would be key to success. Nevertheless, Bush will not allow this. Therefore, the US will stay and things will be bad.
Originally posted by Chinney
I think that Bush has poor judgment and questionable morals and I did not support the war. That said, I agree with the essence of BuonRotto's post. I do not think that Bush's reasons for staying are noble, but whether noble or not, I think that the US should stay, and will stay.
On the other hand, I also think that direct and substantial UN involvement in key decisions and management would be key to success. Nevertheless, Bush will not allow this. Therefore, the US will stay and things will be bad.
One of the things to keep in mind about all of this is that the Bush admin has been largely winning in its global war for support. Stay with me now.
Think about it.
You want to "go into Iraq; clean the whole mess up" (a quote from Rumsfeld, I believe). But no one supports you. Do it anyway.
Once the troops are there, NO ONE will be willing to challenge their presence, since they would be put in the paradox of having to simultaneously support the troops and oppose their mission. Plays well with the right wing.
No support from the rest of the world? Stick to your guns. They will HAVE to come around, since this is a region that everyone has an interest in, and they'll all want some of the spoils.
Can't get UN support? Do it anyway. Eventually the UN will have to come around, if only by admitting that NOW, after you've gone and invaded, it's their responsiblity to help clean up the mess.
I'm not saying that this is right or anything--or that I agree with any of what's happened. I'm just saying that in this kind of 10-moves ahead chess, the amin is winning because everyone else is playing 4 moves ahead.
Now...this doesn't mean that this is anything other than playing for position. This doesn't mean that there's some kind of overarching plan here beyond what I've just laid out. I'm just saying that this is the way it's all come down, in the end.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
One of the things to keep in mind about all of this is that the Bush admin has been largely winning in its global war for support. Stay with me now.
Think about it.
You want to "go into Iraq; clean the whole mess up" (a quote from Rumsfeld, I believe). But no one supports you. Do it anyway.
Once the troops are there, NO ONE will be willing to challenge their presence, since they would be put in the paradox of having to simultaneously support the troops and oppose their mission. Plays well with the right wing.
No support from the rest of the world? Stick to your guns. They will HAVE to come around, since this is a region that everyone has an interest in, and they'll all want some of the spoils.
Can't get UN support? Do it anyway. Eventually the UN will have to come around, if only by admitting that NOW, after you've gone and invaded, it's their responsiblity to help clean up the mess.
I'm not saying that this is right or anything--or that I agree with any of what's happened. I'm just saying that in this kind of 10-moves ahead chess, the amin is winning because everyone else is playing 4 moves ahead.
Now...this doesn't mean that this is anything other than playing for position. This doesn't mean that there's some kind of overarching plan here beyond what I've just laid out. I'm just saying that this is the way it's all come down, in the end.
I agree that the UN had to "come around" - and has indeed now come around, to a large extent. However, UN participation will not make the difference necessary to actually help improve the situation because the Bush administration will never allow that degree of UN involvement. This means that the mess will remain on Bush's hands. For this reason, I am not sure that the "admin. is winning", as you suggest. They might be playing 10 moves ahead, but they are playing checkers when the actual game to be played is chess.
Originally posted by Chinney
I agree that the UN had to "come around" - and has indeed now come around, to a large extent. However, UN participation will not make the difference necessary to actually help improve the situation because the Bush administration will never allow this degree of UN involvement. This means that the mess will remain on Bush's hands. For this reason, I am not sure that the "admin. is winning", as you suggest. They might be playing 10 moves ahead, but they are playing checkers when the actual game to be played is chess.
Well, part of the issue here is purely a matter of political perception. Yes, you are right that in terms of the billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people (both military and civilian) needed to do this reconstruction/nation building, the admin can use the UN presence there, as well as the recent "wins" in the UN, as a means of deflecting charges about unilateralism.
And I agree with your revision of my analogy, which is why I said this:
Now...this doesn't mean that this is anything other than playing for position. This doesn't mean that there's some kind of overarching plan here beyond what I've just laid out. I'm just saying that this is the way it's all come down, in the end.
They forced the UN's, congress's, liberals's, the media's, and to some extent the general population's hand by placing American troops in harm's way and then daring anyone to be "unamerican" enough to a) challenge their presence there or b) deny them funding. The boys are there, and, the Rovian logic goes, it would simply be unamerican not to support them.
We need to keep in mind here that the neo-con logic driving this thing is in many ways pretty simple: you get 200,000-500,000 troops in the middle of the Middle East, and you can force everyone to behave. Traditionally, as is the case with China and NK, the logic has been that the expansion of the free market would force other countries to play nice.
But for the most part it hasn't worked in the ME, and so you park a few hundred thousand troops on the borders of Syria, Iran, etc, etc.
We shall see how this plays out. It certainly seems as if the administration has been surprised by the resistance they've gotten of late. They also didn't seem to consider the fact that their actions in Iraq might draw terrorists *to* the country. They also didn't seem to have thought much about what they'd do after SH was deposed.
Nor, it seems, did they figure on the little war that's brewing between the intelligence community and the admin.
These months leading up to the election are going to be interesting for Bush-watchers. I'm eager to see who the Dems field as the nominee--a Dean/Clark ticket could be really quite devastating to Bush's re-election hopes.
Cheers
Scott