‘Concepts’ for a troop reduction

May 26, 2007

Stop me if you’ve heard this one … the administration is weighing “concepts” for a major reduction in troop levels in Iraq.

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.

One administration official who has taken part in the closed-door discussions told the NYT, “It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren’t sustainable in Iraq, they aren’t sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home.”

While this certainly has the appearance of welcome news, let’s not lose sight of a couple of points. First, this reduction would begin after the “surge” is complete and proven a success story. Second, these “concepts” are, according to the Times article, “entirely a creation of Washington and have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno,” who may have some competing thoughts on the matter.

And third, as Glenn Greenwald explains very well, administration officials have made noises like this before. Indeed, they’ve done so several times.

In other words, don’t get your hopes up.

Sounds like a smoke and mirrors campaign, intentionally “leaked” to placate those who might otherwise vote against Republicans in 2008. Sort of an advance on a Friedman.

  • Yeah, Spurge the level up to about 200,000 then send 25,000 home as a political gesture and he still has above splurge numbers in the field and the talking point of “withdrawing the troops”. playing games with the lives of soldiers and making extra bucks for the war profiteers. This is our president.

  • I would like to believe that this is planning for what they believe the conditions will allow at that point..

    I would like to.

    But can’t.

    I have been driven to such cynicism about the way this administration operates that the only thing I can believe is that our 2008 elections hold more influence on this plan than the “situation on the ground”.

  • What is wrong with the War in Iraq?
    .
    Simply this, when our soldiers are fighting an enemy that is glorified by this country media, how are they supposed to win?
    .

  • I equate troop levels to the cost of gas at the pump.
    Surge upon surge before elections and then a mysterious cut back just before it’s time to vote.

  • How does the media glorify the enemy?

    And how is the media’s portayal of the war prohibiting the US forces from winning?

    Are they responsible for the planning and operations of the war?

    Are they running the logistics of the war?

  • I’ll believe it when I see it. This is about soothing jittery repubs and reassuring ‘independents’ who might still be hanging onto the republican brand by it’s last rotted thread.

    If this promised draw down is anything like the others, they’ll need to locate and deploy another 10 – 15k troops.

  • Can any of you tell me why terrorists use the methods they employ?
    .
    .
    .
    They commit suicide, among other tactics, to attract attention. They want to say to the world, “Look at me, how great I am for what I am about to do!”
    .
    What does the media do?
    .
    They report as much as they can about as many events as they can!
    .
    As a result, every attack is seen as successful. The terrorists given incentive to do more.
    .
    Imagine this scene: Terrorist Leader sees the news coverage of his last attack, and thinks “If I kill/hurt twice as next time, how much more coverage will it receive?”
    .
    Scene 2: Potential Terrorist sees same news coverage and how much Terrorist Leader says “That is what we want, more of that!”. Of course he is going to say “Sign me up, I want to be like him!”
    .
    So why should we feed that mentality, with exactly what they want?

  • CB nailed it and I can see how they’re going to play this scenario out. Worse, this week’s funding battle plays into Bush’s hands. Come September, Bush’s generals will repeat their talking points and say the surge is succeeding and they can begin a slow, phased reduction in troop levels. This will show that Repubs are not only “winners” but that they were willing to stay long enough to succeed in Iraq, unlike the Dems. Throughout next summer the troop drawdown will continue until Bush can say the remaining troops are just mopping up. The relief of troops heading home is hoped to give the Repub candidate some downhill momentum coming into the next election and make the nation breathe a sigh of relief.

    Since the Iraqis aren’t clued into this picture perfect plan, fate will most likely intercede and complicate matters.

  • We’ll leave Iraq when we face the reality that Iraq is a drowning man dragging us under with him as we try to rescue him. A man who was at least alive before threw him in the water.

  • (re: terrorists)They commit suicide, among other tactics, to attract attention. They want to say to the world, “Look at me, how great I am for what I am about to do!” — Bill, @8

    Are you nuts??? By the time anyone knows who the blown up scraps belong to, any attention that a suicide bomber will (or will not) get has to come from his God. The message is not “what I am *about to do*; it’s “*I’ve done it*, and hope it makes a difference”

    I was born after the WWII was over (in ’49) but, every year in school, on the 1st of September (the day Germans attacked Poland in ’39) we celebrated and revered the “grey rows” — the girl and boy scouts, aged 10-16, who, armed with a bottle of explosive liquids mix (Americans know it as “Molotov cocktail”) went out and hurled them at German tanks, even though they knew they’d die as a result of their actions. They weren’t looking for attention — often, to this day, we don’t know their names — they were looking to help the country rid itself of the occupying parasite.

    I’ve been reading your other postings today and thinking you had to be missing quite a few brain cells to say what you did. But this takes the cake… you’re not even a reasonable person, you’re some sort of a mindless robot.

  • Only in the land of Republicans and media sycophants does 46,000 equal half of 146,000. Remember Donald Rumsfeld, the fifth California Raisin and sometime SecDef? He suggested the troop levels would be down to about 10,000 more than three years ago. They just hope you suck at math as badly as they do.

  • I do not doubt the sacrifice, or the courage of these children. I believe we should respect their sacrifice.
    .
    But, your reply, shows how little your understand the mindset of these terrorists. Besides, are you attempting to equate their actions with those of these terrorist.

    • Comments are closed.