>> "Standing beside our defense secretary in Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari called for the speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. The top U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, also standing beside Rumsfeld, said 'fairly substantial' withdrawals of the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq could begin by spring...
>>"Casey's comment lends credence to a secret British defense memo that described U.S. officials as favoring a 'relatively bold reduction in force numbers.' The memo pointed to a drawdown of Allied forces from 170,000 today to 66,000 by next summer, a cut of over 60 percent.
>>"Previously, the administration had denounced war critics who spoke of timetables, arguing that they signal the enemy to go to earth, build its strength, and strike weakened U.S. forces during the pullout. Now, America's top general is talking timetables."
But, of course, major withdrawals of American troops never happened and any ideas about timetables were scrapped. It was all spin designed for the 2006 midterm election, to help the Republicans maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. (The Roveian ploy didn't work, as the American public, tired of being bamboozled yet again, threw the GOP bums out and installed Democratic majorities.)
IRAQ WITHDRAWAL-TALK NOW
These days, even admidst the talk of America remaining in Iraq for decades, the Administration is engaging in feints and spin about the possibility of the U.S. withdrawing tens of thousands of troops prior to the 2008 election -- the election, it just so happens, that will decide which party controls the Executive Branch (and presidential pardons) for the next four years.
Just a few weeks ago, anonymous "senior administration officials" leaked to the New York Times ( click here ) that the Iraq plan being considered calls "for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels [in] the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000..."
Do they think we're that stupid not to see through their unbelievable, pre-election B.S.? Wait, don't answer that question.
Clearly, the Congressional Republicans have got to figure out a way to seem to be supporting Bush's war while not being associated with it in any way. They know that support for the war is poison at the polls and that they'll lose their jobs in a crushing defeat in 2008 unless the Iraq War news starts turning positive and quickly. So spinning the possibility of troop withdrawals is to their partisan benefit.
But those withdrawals ain't gonna happen. The Bush Administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, launched an unnecessary war, botched its implementation and occupation, and helped foment a sectarian civil war. There is no way, at least not at this stage, that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again, no way that the U.S. comes out looking good.
All the options at this stage are awful, but some, such as withdrawal ASAP, are less onerous than the others. Staying in-country, presumably hunkered down in hardened military bases on Iraqi soil, is no solution at all, good, bad or otherwise. It turns American troops into stationary targets for mortar and rocket attacks on the bases and moving targets and potential political hostages once they drive off them. CheneyBush simply refuse to acknowledge that most Iraqis do not want foreigners permanently occupying their country.
ACT 2: 2008 IS ALL THAT MATTERS
Am I making this up, that all policy is filtered through a Rovian political prism -- even, or especially, U.S. strategy in Iraq? Don't take my word for it. Check out what the Washington Post's former Baghdad Bureau Chief, Rajiv Chandrasekeran, reported in his book, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."( http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/emerald.htm )
As Chandrasekeran reports, the Coalition Provisional Authority overseeing the U.S. occupation in the first few years was an ongoing disaster, run by incompetent bunglers who could not talk or think straight. Supposedly the CPA was preparing the ground for a functioning democracy in Iraq -- based on setting up a privatized, free-market "libertarian paradise," heedless of cultural/historical realities -- but since the CPA had FUBAR-ed the situation so totally, Chandrasekeran wrote:
>> "What was best for Iraq [in 2004] was no longer the standard. What was best for Washington was the new calculus. ... The only election that mattered was the one in November -- in the United States."
And that's where we are today both with regard to policy in and about Iraq, and domestic policy as well. Unless it helps Rove lay the groundwork for a GOP presidential victory in 2008 -- achieved by hook or by crook -- forget about it.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
It is a damn shame that the morons running this debacle will not stop and consider the consequences of their actions. They will sacrifice anyone or anything to keep control of this mess they have made of the Untied States and our covenant with our citizens, but in a way it is our fault . About only 20% of the citizens are paying attention. The Rethugs are like a gang of shoplifters that come into a store and start knocking stuff off the counters and as the personnel struggle to put the merchandise back they are lining their pockets and robbing the till. The more I read about the Rethugs the more alarmed I become. There is no segment of governance they have not f--ked up. Human life and suffering mean nothing to them except to distract us from the thievery. Dead and wounded soldiers, dead and wounded Iraqis are just the cost of doing their business. Cheney needs to be impeached and Rove needs to be arrested and Bush impeached. What the hell is Congress waiting for, is the body count not high enough? Yes this is politics and it is time we stood up for the rule of law and the politics of the people.
by
cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments)
on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:27:01 AM
1 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
