Has Gen. Casey joined the cut-and-run caucus?

June 26, 2006

For weeks, all we’ve heard from the GOP is that anyone who has the gall to consider troop withdrawals from Iraq right now is “waving the white flag” against [tag]terrorists[/tag]. They’re cowards, [tag]Republicans[/tag] say, who are tacitly siding with al Queda with a “[tag]defeat and retreat[/tag]” and “[tag]cut and run[/tag]” attitude.

There’s no word yet on what those same far-right critics have to say about Gen. [tag]George Casey[/tag].

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced.

Why does this plan sound familiar? Because it’s the plan that most congressional [tag]Democrats[/tag] have endorsed — and which congressional Republicans have condemned. As John Kerry put it, the Casey plan looks “an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey?”

In the broader context, the [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]administration[/tag] seems, well, rather confused.

On the one hand, the Bush gang says, “No [tag]troop[/tag] [tag]withdrawal[/tag]s before ’09.” On the other hand, the Bush gang says, “We’ll listen to the commanders in the field.” On yet another hand (yes, we’re running out of hands here), the administration wants to start pulling troops before the November elections, and on the final hand, they don’t actually want to embrace the Democratic plan. All the while, no Republican on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue wants to comment at all on whether Casey’s [tag]plan[/tag], which admittedly still lacks key details, has any merit at all.

As Josh Marshall put it, “They can’t keep their story straight because they don’t have any plan or sense what they’re doing. Who can trust them to get it right after they’ve gotten it wrong so many times?”

I don’t know; maybe someone who isn’t paying attention?

Isn’t it so obvious that it hardly needs explaining.

The Republican’ts are going to cut and run.

They don’t want the Democrats to get credit for the policy so they have to first attack the ‘Democrat(ic)’ plan.

Being incompetents, the Bushites will of course lose more lives and leave Iraq a failed state when they do cut and run.

And no, CB and John Marshall, no conservative is going to attack General Casey. You see, because it’s okay for HIM to suggest a draw down of American troops.

  • But if the DoD or the administration to withdraw on a timetable it is not considered “cutting & running” even if the plan is verbatum what the Democrats were saying becuase it is the administration is saying it and they don’s “cut & run” only Democrats do that.

  • No one should be surprised by this tactic: it is identical to the sAdministration’s political play on forming the Department of Homeland Security. Having seen it once, one can only hope the Dems have thought about how they would counter the next time this play is run.

  • Meanwhile, whoever gets credit, the GOP death machine continues to ring up more US deaths in Bush’s Iraq Quagmire.

    This reminds me of the later phase(s) of the Vietnam fiasco. We must never, ever let the Regal Moron and the Bush Crime Family off the hook for starting all this – and continuing it so long as there might be electoral payoff for the GOP.

  • When repubs do it, it’s not cutting and running – it’s a bold midterm campaign strategy.
    Every Dem should hit the bobblehead shows this weekend with one single theme: If Bush wants to take our plan and slap a different name on it in order to steal credit for himself, that’s fine with us. We want our troops back as quickly as can be responsibly done. That was our position all along – while Bush and others were blasting this very plan as ‘cut and run’. We welcome the President’s cooperation, even if he wants to steal the credit. The over-riding issue is getting our troops home.

  • Josh M:
    “Who can trust them to get it right after they’ve gotten it wrong so many times?”

    Carpetbagger:
    “I don’t know; maybe someone who isn’t paying attention? ”

    Me:
    “Hey, did you hear who got married in Sydney? Anybody know when football season starts? What are you folks doing on the fourth? Global warming? I hear that’s good for America. Hey where’d you get that cool phone? I want a Nintendo DS Lite too! Walgreens has got Pringles on sale. God I wish I could afford a Hummer…

  • cut and stay- pretend to leave but protect our oil.
    The Repubs are doing the election year two-step.
    So just before the elections we pull out a token force because the Iraqi’s are “standing up”.
    Then just after the election.. we protect permanent bases with more troops because there has been an upsurge of violence.
    A smoke and mirror parlor trick to answer the question… just how stupid is the American voter?

  • I’m wonderig how many of thoe troops will need to be redeployed to Afghanistan. It seems we may not have finished winning that part of the war on terror before we cut and ran started pulling out troops for the Iraq mess.

  • ***For weeks, all we’ve heard from the GOP is that anyone who has the gall to consider troop withdrawals from Iraq right now is “waving the white flag” against terrorists. They’re cowards, Republicans say, who are tacitly siding with al Queda with a “defeat and retreat” and “cut and run” attitude.***

    Oh, I would just LOVE to see the “Frist and Bones Show” say this about George Casey. I’d love to see them say it to his face—and then realize that they’re venting their snivelling hatreds upon a man who, by the way, just happens to have 14 combat brigades at his disposal.

    Funny thing about all this; when Nixon did it in Viet Nam, it was “Peace with Honor.” But if someone like Murtha or Kerry do it, it’s *tacitly siding with al Queda with a “defeat and retreat” and “cut and run” attitude.*

  • Lance,
    If Gen. Casey raises the issue too much, to the point where the Democrats’ plan starts to make sense to most Americans, the knives will come out.

    I really don’t think the David Brooks/Jonah Goldberg/Ann Coulter/Rush/Hannity crowd has anything below them to keep from going any lower in their level of attacks.

  • Hello everyone here in La-la land. To say them Dems are winners on this issue is comical. Yes, them Dems got the smarts alright!
    The administration has said all along, draw down of troops will be contingent on the Iraqi government’s ability to defend itself. When the administration said it would give no dead line on troop withdrawals the past several years was because the training of security forces in that country were just beginning, How fast would they learn, how well would they perform when put into action. Would they cut and run? Would they shot at fellow Iraqis?
    Only a little more then a year ago the Dems were crying that so few security forces where trained and that they could not even be counted on to stand and fight. But knowing all of this, the Dems kept yelling about where’s the plan…there’s no plan. Well the plan was being performed the whole time—the training of the security forces was the plan. And do you know what? Come on… think… say it now. Can you say the plan is working? Don’t look know, but the 300,000 Iraqi security forces are about to stand up. Hey wait a minute!!!! What did King George always say—‘ We’ll stand down when the Iraqi security forces stand up.’ What a sound bit, eh.
    Oh, hey… Do you like apples? Well, how about them apples. Sorry, but please, you guys are really out there–!

    Your deconstruction of this issue is laughable. You got hung by your own clueless narrative, now didn’t you? Come on, you can admit it… It’s ok, you can say it, come on say it… say: “I like apples—“

    Come back when you can show that you can beat Oral Robert University in a debate—o.k.

  • Beware of the head fake. BushCo. will begin to draw down troop levels in September. By January the level will start to rise again in response to……….? Well, they’ll think of something.

    Keep in mind, they want a permanent presence in Iraq. That is how they defining winning. Removal of all US troops is defeat.

  • Iraq security forces= ARVN

    Here’s one of the best articles on the situation in Iraq that I’ve seen in recent days:

    http://hnn.us/articles/26853.html

    rege,
    “increased Iranian aggression” will be the new bogeyman. Comparisons to stationing troops in Europe during the Cold War will be everywhere.

  • Cliff, consider the following from TomDispatch.com

    t is important to note that all promises of drawdowns or withdrawals are invariably linked to the dubious proposition that the Bush administration can “stand up” an effective Iraqi army and police force (think “Vietnamization” again), capable of circumscribing the Sunni insurgency and so allowing American troops to pull back to bases outside major urban areas, as well as to Kuwait and points as far west as the United States. Further, all administration or military withdrawal promises prove to be well hedged with caveats and obvious loopholes, phrases like “if all goes according to plan and security improves…” or “it also depends on the ability of the Iraqis to…”

    Since guerrilla attacks have actually been on the rise and the delivery of the basic amenities of modern civilization (electrical power, potable water, gas for cars, functional sewage systems, working traffic lights, and so on) on the decline, since the very establishment of a government inside the heavily fortified Green Zone has proved immensely difficult, and since U.S. reconstruction funds (those that haven’t already disappeared down one clogged drain or another) are drying up, such partial withdrawals may prove more complicated to pull off than imagined. It’s clear, nonetheless, that “withdrawal” is on the propaganda agenda of an administration heading into mid-term elections with an increasingly skittish Republican Party in tow and congressional candidates worried about defending the President’s mission-unaccomplished war of choice. Under the circumstances, we can expect more hints of, followed by promises of, followed by announcements of “major” withdrawals, possibly including news in the fall election season of even more “massive” withdrawals slated for the end of 2006 or early 2007, all hedged with conditional clauses and “only ifs” — withdrawal promises that, once the election is over, this administration would undoubtedly feel under no particular obligation to fulfill.

    Assuming, then, a near year to come of withdrawal buzz, speculation, and even a media blitz of withdrawal announcements, the question is: How can anybody tell if the Bush administration is actually withdrawing from Iraq or not? Sometimes, when trying to cut through a veritable fog of misinformation and disinformation, it helps to focus on something concrete. In the case of Iraq, nothing could be more concrete — though less generally discussed in our media — than the set of enormous bases the Pentagon has long been building in that country. Quite literally multi-billions of dollars have gone into them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer “tasked with facilities development” in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction (“the numbers are staggering”). Since then, the base-building has been massive and ongoing.

    How do you reconcile the construction of these bases with the idea that we will be withdrawing troops beginning latter in the year? You may say the the administration denies that there are any plans for permanent bases. Again you should look at actions not words. The military has already begun the process of building those bases. And Congress has been very helpful in this regard as this action demonstrates.

    When the House and the Senate pass similar but not identical bills, they create a conference committee to work out the differences. When they both passed amendments to the “emergency supplemental” spending bill stipulating that none of the money could be used to build permanent bases in Iraq, the conference committee, behind closed doors this week, resolved that non-difference by deleting it.

    Why did they reinstate funding for bases we aren’t building?

    By the way Cliff, what have you been up to since Cheers closed?

  • ***Come back when you can show that you can beat Oral Robert University in a debate—o.k.***
    Comment by Cliff

    *sounds of muffled—yet raucous—laughter ensues*

    Well…in order to “beat” them in a debate, I suppose that they (being, of course, the aforementioned collection of children referred to by “some people” as a University community) would first need to learn “how” to debate—now wouldn’t they?

  • The only way I believe that the U.S. will ever leave Iraq is by sheer force, i.e. by being overrun by the “insurgents.” The U.S. is building a huge embassy complex, and 14 military bases, all permanent. Of course, if it looks as if these are about to be overrun, the gov’t will say, “Ok, we are pulling out and turning over these bases and the embassy to the new Iraqi gov’t.” The only problem is, the new Iraqi gov’t may be anti-American, pro-Iranian…

  • In your June 26, ’06 blog you wrote, “. . . the Bush gang says, “No troop withdrawals before ’09.” It would be easier for me to blelieve your blogs if you got your facts correct, without spinning it to meet a certain agenda.

    Here’s where you got your faulty reasoning. Recently, a reporter asked the President, “Will there come a day when there will be NO more American Forces in Iraq?” The President answered, “That will be answered by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.” The Left immediately spun it to mean that NO troops would be coming home before the next American president is in office, (2009). That is NOT what he said. Your argument does not hold up to even basic scrutiny.

    The President’s answer would be the same if all but one company of troops came home. Remember, we still have “some” troops in South Korea and Japan, at their request. The President has been consistent in saying that, “As Iraqi, forces stand up, American forces will stand down.” Liberal Left hates that.

    General Casey’s remarks are completely consistent with the President’s strategy. SOME troops, (maybe MANY), will be coming home soon, hopefully.

    Your blog may fool those who fail to check your “facts”, but your “spin” just won’t stand up to anyone who checks it out. Please try to put some references in with your facts if you expect people to believe anthing you have to say. I’ll bet your first reference will read like, “Everyone knows that . . . . . ” Your propaganda just doesn’t fly. I would be happy to supply references to MY “unspun” facts to anyone who cares to check. Easily verifiable on your own, however.

    William Pearson
    Cerritos, CA

  • Hey Rege,

    Thanks for the response. I do appreciate the heads up on the air bases. If we could establish air bases there with the consent of the Iraqi government what would not be good about that. I do not think, however, they would not go for this on a permanent basis. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this whole Iraqi thing is going to turn up just fine, but if most the troops are out and the Iraqi people have a life with water and electricity and security provided by their own security forces, I will say that’s a good thing. We’ll see.

    And I’ll tell you what I have been doing since Cheers closed, if you tell me what you did before you discovered the cut and paste function on your PC.
    At least, you have graduated from your bowl of alphabet soup.

    Cheers– Cliff

  • all I can say is we remaking th Veit-nam war from a middle east remake we went and build places over in nam so what is the difference we never left untill the the veit Kong ove powered us
    so if we can make a buesiness with money of Uncle sam can dish out we will do all we can to make a profit on Iraqi Oil if JR. Bush Erwin has his way someday being a Iraq’a Dallas.

  • as I coment here I was never a fan of t he Iraq war and no buddy had asked us if it was right to go in on a few lies to make it so to us as american citizen’s being lied to from the President Of The United States ir rigging the votes for him in florida to his brother Jeb Bush to keep him in from having Al Gore from Tenn to get in
    nothing more can one does’nt read on here to make a concept on

  • I’m sorry, but it seems to me that CB does a pretty good job of providing background info on what he talks about (it’s those blue words in the posts).
    And yes, he may slip from time to time in his arguments (nobody’s perfect), but if you’re going to use just one incident as proof of “spinning (facts) to meet a certain agenda”, that doesn’t sound like much of a case. Maybe if Steve had an Office of Special Plans that cherry-picked and warped info, you might sound a little bit more legitimate. But who in there right mind would create such a horrible, retched hive of scum and villainy like that?

    I wouldn’t consider myself the Liberal Left (redundant?), but I’m sure most of them like me want Iraqis to stand up for themselves, so that we don’t lose another 2500 good people, plus thousands maimed. Can YOU quote any viable liberal sources (discounting the whackjob posters) who has publicly stated they DON’T want Iraqis to stand up for themselves, and would like to see the US fail just to embarrass Bush?

    Unfortunately, that “standing up” will be a long time coming. The Iraqi military is still underequipped, undertrained, and heavily reliant on US support. The DOD doesn’t even release reports on the numbers of Iraqi troops that can fight independently.
    While we talk of manuever units being sent home, I have a feeling the logistic forces on the ground, and support by the USAF, are probably going to be there for another half-decade or so.

    Back to the Liberal Left comment, seriously, isn’t that a tad redundant? Is there a Liberal Right? A Conservative Left?

    • Comments are closed.