Some of this plan sounds familiar

According to a front-page article in the Washington Post, the Pentagon plans to move several U.S. military brigades out of Iraq soon, and put them “on call” in Kuwait. With this in mind, I can’t help but wonder how soon Republicans will accuse the Pentagon of embracing a “cut and run” strategy.

Barring any major surprises in Iraq, the Pentagon tentatively plans to reduce the number of U.S. forces there early next year by as many as three combat brigades, from 18 now, but to keep at least one brigade “on call” in Kuwait in case more troops are needed quickly, several senior military officers said.

Pentagon authorities also have set a series of “decision points” during 2006 to consider further force cuts that, under a “moderately optimistic” scenario, would drop the total number of troops from more than 150,000 now to fewer than 100,000, including 10 combat brigades, by the end of the year, the officers said.

This isn’t entirely new — similar plans have been floated in recent months — but in the current political environment, these plans have a certain salience. Indeed, the fact that “several senior military officers” would talk the WaPo about scaling down U.S. forces in Iraq the same week the White House insisted the troops aren’t going anywhere, suggests the Bush gang — surprise, surprise — may not have its act together in planning for the future of Iraq.

For that matter, it was none other than Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a man Republicans excoriated for practically being a traitor to America, who suggested something similar to the Pentagon strategy last week when he emphasized “redeployment” of U.S. troops.

Murtha stressed this point Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying he wanted to “redeploy the troops to the periphery.” He used that phrase — “to the periphery,” meaning just offshore or across the border from Iraq, not all the way home — three times during the interview.

So, despite all the talking points about cutting and running, Murtha envisioned redeploying troops over the next couple of months to locations just across the border from Iraq, in a place such as Kuwait, where’d they remain “on call.” Which, it just so happens, is exactly what several senior military officers are now planning to do.

Granted, they’re not the exact same plan, but based on the rhetoric from the GOP last week, you’d have thought Murtha had recommended turning over the keys to the nuclear arsenal to Osama bin Laden. As is turns out, the crux of Murtha’s Iraq strategy seems to have a few fans over at the Pentagon.

Apologies can be sent to:

The Honorable John Murtha
Washington, D.C. Office
2423 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

I’m getting a whiff of a “Declare victory and
pull out of Iraq” plan from the administration
to defuse the issue for 2006, and to hang
the Democratic hawks and war supporters
out to dry, like Hillary and Biden et al. Think
how ridiculous they look supporting a war
that Bush and Co. are suddenly declaring
to have been won. Talk about pulling the
rug out from beneath the mainstream Democrats –
this is a classic, brilliant.

I’m probably wrong. Usually am. But what
a great strategery for the Republicans to
take Iraq off the table, and to leave most
of the DLC, like Hillary, looking like fools,
among Democrats, Republicans and
independents alike.

  • It is a great strategery, and it’s highly consistent with the GOP’s lacking any kind of principles whatsoever (beyond “electoral” victory at any price). I do wonder, though: Will the Dems have the sense/balls to at least ask whether the deaths of so many thousands (and terrible mangling of so many thousands more) was worth it to make the Shrub a “war president”? Whether that bit of staging was worth bankrupting the nation? Whether “moving to the periphery” (for the moment) really constitutes “winning the war on terrism” in anyone’s dictionary?

  • It’s a rearward assault!

    This is exactly what is going on. Shrub wants to take Iraq off the table for 2006? Fine with me! Stop fighting it, and LET THEM! Instead, what the fuck are the Repugs going to talk about? Let’s talk about Repug corruption instead! Let’s talk about oil prices! Let’s talk about the insane cost of healthcare! Let’s talk about energy independence. Let’s talk about tax cuts for the rich. Let’s talk about being owned by China and Saudi Arabia. Let’s talk about the deficit. Let’s talk about… the economy!! Buaaaaahahaha!

    If they end a war, they are leaving themselves open for the things they are most afraid of: a public rebellion against their horrific economic policies.

    Unless of course they start another one. This could be the same strategy they did in Afghanistan: lose the war, declare victory, leave, and immediately go on to the next war. But we’re already well-positioned now to call them on that bullshit if they try it again.

  • Interesting. Murtha calls for a pull out at the earliest practible time. Iraq basically says it is time to go. Now this from the Army. HMMMM I am sure the military has been discussing the for a while I just find the timing odd.

  • Found this on Juan Cole

    Sources at the conference told al-Hayat that they envisaged the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the cities within 6 months (i.e. mid-May?). They said that the withdrawal would be completed over a period of two years (i.e. November 2007). This timetable, al-Hayat says, appears actually to have been put forward by the Americans themselves. If that is true, we finally know exactly what George W. Bush means by “staying the course.” It is a course that takes us to withdrawal.
    http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/iraqis-ask-for-withdrawal-timetable-ap.html

    One can only wonder (if this is true) when this timetable was proposed. AND does the administration call it a timetable in public or is it only a timetable when referring to the Dems ideas? Of course if it is true and it wasn’t supposed to get out, you know what would have happend. Victory would have been declared, troops would have been drawn out in time for the 2008 election, and the general public would have not likely known that the “timetable” was out there all along but kept secret in order to maximize the results at election time.

    I hate being this cynical.

  • Comments are closed.