Let’s see, over the last day or so, I’ve managed to bash the Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton, the Washington Post’s Shailagh Murray, ABC’s Diane Sawyer, the NYT’s David Brooks, the Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel, and the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum. It wasn’t exactly my intention to go after reporters who drive me up a wall, but it just seemed to work out that way.
Who’s next? How about Time’s Michael Duffy? (via Kevin Drum)
What’s needed is not the sloganeering of certain politicians but a clear-eyed, multifaceted policy. That would involve making plain to the Iraqi government our intention to pull back, followed by an orderly withdrawal of about half the 160,000 troops currently in Iraq by the middle of 2008. A force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would dig in for a longer stay to protect America’s most vital interests: denying al- Qaeda a safe haven and preventing an almost inevitable civil war from spilling into neighboring countries. […]
On July 17, in yet another example of how unhelpful the political conversation has become…the Senate prepared for an all-night debate on another in a line of doomed-to-fail resolutions. Sponsored by Democratic Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed, the measure called on the Administration to begin withdrawing the bulk of U.S. troops within 120 days and leave an unstated number behind to go after terrorists and protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. […]
But even if Congress approved Levin-Reed, military logistics experts say it would take far longer than 120 days to redeploy even half of U.S. forces. The reality is that it’s difficult to get out fast.
Oh, where to begin. Kevin is willing to overlook Duffy’s self-congratulatory suggestion that his split-the-difference arm waving is self-evidently a “clear-eyed, multifaceted policy.” He’s very generous; I’m inclined to suggest Duffy is engaged in a ridiculous vanity exercise in which he dismisses every possible policy idea as foolish and misguided, except those exactly in line with his. But then Kevin explains the more substantive flaws.
OK then. Riddle me this. How is it that Duffy can correctly state that Levin-Reed requires withdrawal to begin within 120 days and then, two sentences later, imply that Levin-Reed requires withdrawal to be finished within 120 days? WTF?
But really, it’s even worse. It’s true that the current text of Levin-Reed requires all but a residual force to leave Iraq by April 2008. But Duffy knows perfectly well that if Republicans were seriously willing to discuss withdrawal, Democrats would change that date in a heartbeat based on military counsel. Duffy knows this. No Democrat wants to withdraw any faster than military planners say is safe. So why does he imply otherwise?
I suspect it’s because the Republican talking points have incorporated “precipitous withdrawal” into the political lexicon so thoroughly, even writers who know better manage to believe “Dems support a reckless withdrawal policy.” It doesn’t matter that it’s false; it matters that it fits into the easy-to-write narrative.
Indeed, it’s even Broderesque in a twisted kind of way — the right is irresponsible for wanting an open-ended commitment, and the left is irresponsible for wanting to withdraw too quickly. Isn’t there some high-minded centrist path for the Serious People to follow? Where’s Unity08 and Michael Bloomberg?
It’s all a transparent sham. Duffy mischaracterizes the Democratic policy on Iraq because if he described it fairly, he wouldn’t be able to bash the Dems’ approach while praising his own self-described “clear-eyed” approach.
And what is this superior approach? 50,000 to 100,000 troops for the indefinite future, a policy which is probably the worst of all possible worlds.
This is the same Michael Duffy, by the way, who told us in December that Bush would listen to the Iraq Study Group and craft an exit strategy. He was wrong then, too.