It’s not politicizing the war, but a troop withdrawal would be great by November

It’s almost amusing to see Republicans walk the tightrope. They’ve insisted for years that all decisions about U.S. [tag]troop[/tag] deployment in [tag]Iraq[/tag] have to be dictated by conditions on the ground and the judgment of military leaders in Iraq. They also admit, usually behind the scenes, that a serious drawdown in forces might give [tag]Republicans[/tag] a boost in the [tag]midterm elections[/tag].

Sometimes, a Republican even walks the tightrope in public.

The withdrawal of 20,000-40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq this fall would greatly help Republican chances in the November election, Rep. [tag]Mark Souder[/tag] (R-Ind.) said at a fundraiser Thursday at the National Rifle Association.

Souder acknowledged in his remarks that the war in Iraq has dampened support for Republican candidates but added that withdrawing 30,000 troops could have a big impact, said Martin Green, Souder’s spokesman.

The congressman said it would amount to an “[tag]’October Surprise[/tag]’ in its effect, although he dismissed the idea that a U.S. troop withdrawal would begin for domestic political reasons.

Of course, it would be cynical to think that partisan, electoral motivations might help dictate the administration’s decisions in Iraq. It’s not like Bush has ever allowed such considerations to enter his mind before, right? Oh wait…

[The 2004 U.S. presidential] election, and the political considerations that go along with it, have been driving our military strategy for the past two years. Before the war, we passed up a chance to take out terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi — for political reasons. We invaded with too few troops — for political reasons. We lowballed the cost of the war — for political reasons. We ignored the UN and then turned around and pleaded for their help — for political reasons. Then we installed Iyad Allawi as president behind the UN’s back — for political reasons.

And just recently we’ve learned that the Marines were yo-yoed in and out of Fallujah — for political reasons. The president has bizarrely dismissed his own intelligence agencies’ analysis of Iraq as “guessing” — for political reasons. He’s ignored the advice of his own generals about troop requirements for the upcoming elections — for political reasons. And assaults on Baathist enclaves have been postponed until December — for fairly obvious political reasons.

So, of course, Souder wants the administration to bring home 20,000-40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq before November, but believes political reasons will be completely irrelevant. How could anyone doubt the sincerity?

There you go again, CB, bringing up that reality-based track record.

  • I heard (on Air America I think) that the Congress also plans to move all of their tax cut and appropriations bills to the fall session. We have to make sure the Republicans look good going into the elections. Isn’t that the point of government, to stay in power? Who cares if the world is going to pieces around them now? They need to wait until closer to the election to maximize the impact of their pandering bullsh~t.

    This is a great plan. I can hear the conversations now…

    [8th Tee while waiting for the group ahead to clear the fairway]

    Republican #1: Boy our poll numbers are crappy.
    Republican #2: Yeah, but I am not worried.
    Rep #1: Why not? Because you have a big fat lobbyist job waiting if you lose re-election?
    Rep #2: Well that helps but the real reason is that we have an ace up our sleeve. Our polls cannot get any lower now so why fight it. There is only one poll that matters and that is in November.
    Rep #1: Damn straight, whitebread!
    Rep #2: So what we do is [dramatic pause] nothing. We collect huge contributions from the oil and defense industries all summer while they enjoy huge profits thanks to us. The in the fall we throw a bunch of pork at the voters, promise them lower taxes (stiffles a giggle), shuffle home some troops and go into the election riding high.
    Rep #1: I love it. Thank God these people are like sheep. Looks like Karl sliced into the rough. I think we are clear to tee off.
    Rep #2: Yeah I can’t hit over 300 yards. They should be safe.

    [End scene]

  • I’m predicting that this summer the Pentagon will launch some massive “all-Iraqi” operation (backed by heavy US support) in a quiet part of the country, be called a tremendous success after they arrest a few hundred farmers, and the Iraqi security forces will be declared self-sustaining. By September, the first large-scale redeployment of US forces will begin.

  • I’m thinking that we’ll see a drawdown before the election—show the heroes coming home and all that—then a redeployment right back into Iraq immediately after the elections. As for Iran, we don’t have the necessary troops to carry on the two conflicts already under way in the region. Going after the Iranians will likely require somewhere in the area of several full combat divisions—and all our military strategists have sided with RumPot and his “brigade” design. Brigades will not work well against an organized force of somewhere in the range of 600,000 troops. Not “conscripted” soldiers bulked around a core dedicated force that’s obscenely top-heavy with generals, but the equivalent of 60 combat/support “divisions.” The US invading Iran would be like a flock of sheep invading a den of wolves….

  • Steve,
    Read the history of Task Force Smith during the opening stages of the Korean War. Same outcome

  • ummmmmm, please note that no-one has promised to bring 30,000 troops home. They have just said that they won’t be in Iraq. Now, just as an off-hand guess, 30,000 would make a decent advance party to clean up whatever’s left of Tehran…

  • Come September, October, it might just happen. Some tenthousands of troops being pulled out of Iraq. If the GOP reckons that might limit the damage in November, I wouldn’t be surprised if they threw away the future of Iraq for this shortterm gain.

  • Comments are closed.