Iraq: Reducing Troop Levels To Back Where We Started

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:49:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Bush Administration's purpose for the Surge has always been to distract from the call for withdrawal from Iraq. In today's NYTimes, they admit it:

White House to Offer Iraq Plan of Gradual Cuts

The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials. One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on “a sustainable footing” at least through the end of the Bush presidency.

Now Bush gets to announce troop reductions. But the reductions will, in the best of circumstances, leave us at troop levels that existed prior to the Surge. Oh by the way, this too will be a NEW strategy:

The officials said the White House would portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. Many Republicans have urged Mr. Bush to unveil a new strategy, and even to propose a gradual reduction of American troops to the levels before this year’s troop increase — about 130,000 — or even lower to head off Democratic-led efforts to force the withdrawal of all combat forces by early next year.

This has always been nothing but a game for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. The Surge may have been a serious strategy for General Petraeus. For the Bush Administration it has always been an attempt to run out the clock until the end of his term. More.

Here is the core of the fakery:

Central to the internal debate on a “postsurge” strategy is the extent to which American troops would be able to ask Iraqi forces to take the lead on security missions in critical sections of the country, particularly in Baghdad. Many Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, have demanded that Americans hand over more security missions to the Iraqis.

There has been no Surge in training of Iraqi forces, or evidence of imporvement in the performance of Iraq forces. If anything, the Iraqis have more clearly divided themselves. The Shia faction are clearly aligned with a now solely Shia/Kurd government. The Sunnis have been stocked by the American military in exchange for fighting Al Qaida in Anbar. And Muktada Al Sadr remains at odds with the US and the Maliki government. And just over the horizon looms Iran, enjoying thre disastrous knots the US continues to ties itself into. But the "key to reducing US troop presence in Iraq is the Iraqis standing up" - as we have heard for 3 years now. But what have we been doing about that? Very little apparently:

Although no decision has been made about the full extent of the American combat mission next year, administration officials and military officers say the troops in Iraq would shift priorities to training and supporting Iraq forces. . . .

Anyone reading these type of stories for the past 4 years must know by now that it is all just blather. Blather to cover up an ongoing Debacle with no path to success, no end in sight and no leaders will the Bush Administration willing to admit it.

Unfortunately, we do not have a Congress willing to put an end to the Bush Administrations shenanigans. Nor a Media willing to tell the truth.

A Perfect Storm of incompetence, mendacity, apathy, and political cowardice.

< Late Night: Eagles New Song "How Long" | On Experts: It's The Dishonesty, Stupid >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iraq: Reducing Troop Levels To Back Where We Started | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bush vs. reality (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by joejoejoe on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:46:37 PM EST

Bush in today's radio address:

Americans can be encouraged by the progress and reconciliation that are taking place at the local level. An American politician once observed that "all politics is local." In a democracy, over time national politics reflects local realities. And as reconciliation occurs in local communities across Iraq, it will help create the conditions for reconciliation in Baghdad as well.

Latest Iraqi Red Crescent report July 31, 2007:

Since Samarra' events on 22 March 2006, there has been a population movement (internal displacement) all over Iraq, which is intensifying an already unstable situation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that 1.8 million Iraqi citizens were displaced to neighboring countries mainly to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Egypt. By 31 July 2007, there were 1,128,086 Internally Displaced People (IDP), of which 38.7% were children (less than 12 years), 31.9% were women and 29.4% were men. (See table 1and 2, and chart 1 and 2 for details) After declaring the new security plan (February 2007), the Iraqi Government decided to apply part of this plan for the return of refugees and IDP who were forcefully displaced. The UNHCR expects that 40,000-50,000 people will be displaced each month even if this security plan succeeds to solve the displacement problem. Currently, the number of displaced people is increasing at an average of 80,000-100,000 each month.

How much reconciliation is going on if the number of internally displaced Iraqis has increases each and every month of 2007? 'Success' is defined under the surge plan as limiting the internal refugees to a mere 480,000 per year. That's some reconciliation.

I feel terrible today (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:26:00 PM EST

sick, down with something, so this post couldn't bring me down much. I scraped to the computer attempting to distract myself from how horrible I feel and you have so thanks ;) I asked Wes Clark last year during a live blogging how much longer in Iraq because my husband was coming upon facing another deployment and this is getting very long on all of us. He did a great job. He actually heard me and responded to what I said. He was a credit to his life journey as well and said and reminded me about all the things I needed to bolster my strength and stamina. My husband and I have held to the road, we have sought counseling whenever it was needed but our teenage daughter has had a horrible time with all of this. She ran away this summer because of the constant overhanging deployment stress that dogs her family. She was gone the whole summer. I hardly slept at times, that was why I was up at three in the morning sometimes reading here. My husband went through a similar summer. She came home a few weeks ago, she is pregnant, she is marrying her boyfriend that she broke up with right before she left and suddenly my daughter is completely at peace. So we changed counselors because the guy who is also a minister along with a being a pretty good counselor just couldn't get what was up with her. We found a female counselor with a background in anthropology who came highly recommended. She met with daughter and then us and it was all so simple. My question, because I'm a feminist and my daughter has been raised in an atmosphere of women making their own choices was why did my daughter choose this? She knows that the American economy is very unkind to anyone without a college degree and she doesn't have the resources to support a child and neither does her intended yet this whole thing is a goal for her that makes the most sense. The answer, my daughter faces the constant stress of her father going toe to toe back into a war with no end in sight. She waited seven years to even have a father and boy do I remember how mad she was the first time he deployed. Long before we all knew there were no WMD's my daughter who stood to loose the one thing most covetted by her told me, "I have waited my whole to have dad and now I have him and now they are going to kill him for stupid crazy reasons!" Sometimes your kids are smarter than you. My daughter is a strong woman. She is a woman with a family in the middle of a war and women have since the cave become most concerned with producing the next generation when their tribe is at war. They may kill her father but she will have something to love in his place also. I respect Wes Clark a lot but I'm not sure that during his next live blog he is going to care for my questions if he goes into that whole military families are doing a great job and we have to do what we can in Iraq to avoid the potential social bomb that Bush turned it into. I'm sorry Wes, I have done my best to be a responsible part of this volunteer minority and now my kids are reacting to the bizarre stresses that everyone waves flags at them to reward them for surviving in ways that do not match their socio/economic surroundings. I have a female woman almost child who will be a mother long before going to college and who is completely at peace and stable acting again doing what her biology is demanding that she do. Given the circumstances Wes, I'm thinking that even you can go fly a kite now.

Speechless but empathetic. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:42:34 PM EST

: On a brighter note though (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:53:51 AM EST

It looks like I only had a cold AND! Have you read any of the stuff about conservative families out breeding liberals? Bush may have fixed that problem for us before he is done ;) Daughters of military families may start breeding flocks of birkenstock wearing tree hugging rabid lambs.

I hope everything works out for you MT (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 03:23:57 PM EST

: It will, the stress has caused some (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:13:39 AM EST

things to develop sort of backwards ;) Being an open and caring and supportive family will make getting the rest developed possible. I intend to survive, adapt, and overcome the Bush Administration. I wasn't a dedicated activist before these guys, they made ME into one though and so be it.

Sometimes, the kids know best (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Lora on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 04:19:56 PM EST

Tracy,

I am glad your daughter is back and at peace. All the best.


It's true (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:15:49 AM EST

Parents think they know the path their children should be on but really the only thing a parent knows is the path the parent needs to be on.


I'll take those wise words to heart. (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:49:35 PM EST

P.S. Did you notice BTD is "live-blogging" today's Dem debte in Iowa? No fashion commentary though.


: I didn't notice (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:06:25 PM EST

BTD live blogging a Democratic debate this early? He must be bored, no good sports on the telly ;)

Tracy (none / 0) (#4)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST

I'm so glad your daughter came back.


Thx Mary (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:38:13 PM EST

She is doing really well too. She has such a sense of peace within now and we went baby furniture shopping yesterday for the apartment they don't even have yet and I'm just going with the flow ;) I still think I'm going to hang a photo of Dubya in my closet though and spit in his face everyday till I'm outta here ;)


You (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:45:45 PM EST

are going to be one great grandmother ;)


: Coming clean on being a grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:07:10 AM EST

It isn't what I would have chosen for those two but looking at adorable baby clothes and warm soft fuzzy blankets is pretty cool ;-). It is impossible to remain depressed in a baby store.

The problem with logic (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Lora on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 04:25:55 PM EST

BTD writes:

This has always been nothing but a game for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. The Surge may have been a serious strategy for General Petraeus. For the Bush Administration it has always been an attempt to run out the clock until the end of his term.

BTD also wrote on the Petraeus thread:

The problem with this logic is that General Petraeus is part of the Bush Administration too.

Bingo.

A Shell game (none / 0) (#1)
by cmpnwtr on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:06:40 AM EST

Indeed it is a shell game. Increase the troop levels, then draw the down to the level before the "surge." The media talks about a draw-down. I don't think though, that simply trying to shame the Dems with a broad brush will help. It is not the whole Congress that is lacking in the courage of leadership. It is a minority of some democratic reps and senators. They are the ones who need to be challenged, along with those Repub senators who are up for election. In my state of Oregon a good senator and a good rep are being shouted down in public meetings even though they have consistently voted to end this war by rude and irrational people insisting that everyone in Congress has sold out and impeachment is the only answer. That doesn't help the cause at all. The meme should be, "we need more progressive Dems in Congress," not "the Democratic Congress has failed." Let's support those who are already with us.

Bush's Escape (none / 0) (#11)
by Dr4Will on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:44:14 PM EST

while trying to make the war go on until he can sneak back to Texas--Bush is sacrificing the lives of 1600 more Americans in Iraq so he can wallow in his oil wells--why are the republicans so afraid to speak up and take action-their re-election is meaningless if they stand for nothing and live for nothing-corporation perks and future employment await them in their sick cowardly minds--I include Specter,Warner and Luger---our homeless of tomorrow are fighting so that the cowards of today can have fat pay-offs--who can make sense of this-

On a different note today (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:29:47 AM EST

We have to draw down troops or Bush will not have the manpower to maintain a military presence in Iraq until the end of his presidency that doesn't scream WE LOST, THE OIL WILL NEVER PAY FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION, AND I'M A LOSER AND CERTAIN THE HISTORY BOOKS WILL NEVER SAY ANYTHING ANY DIFFERENT. He has to have something to rest up and deploy back into Iraq next year and finish his presidency out.

: From today's AP, an article including (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by oculus on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:01:45 PM EST

statements of Major General Rick Lynch, who is in charge of Southern Baghdad and regions south of Baghdad.

There has been an overall decrease in attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians, south of Baghdad, but 46 percent of those were being carried out by Shiite extremists, Lynch said.
'The real difference now is we've got to spend as much time fighting the Shia extremists as Sunni extremists,' he said.
[Emphasis added.]