Not so sure it is a problem for him. Proposing to bring home 5,000 of 160,000 troops is nothing but a pandering political move.
At lame attempt to diffuse some of the political pressure.
Posted by Simp at September 4, 2007 10:43 AMYet Bush may now have entered a lose-lose situation here.
No problem at all. He'll call Iraq a big ole VICTORY. The peters of the republi-con world will sing his high praises as a military genie-yus. These people are short on rationality.
Posted by phidipides at September 4, 2007 10:55 AMdigby laid out the game plan a while back:
So, here's how I see the narrative: The surge is working so well that we can bring home 5,000 troops to fight the war on Christmas. But we mustn't set forth any timetables beyond that because things are really starting to move politically over there. Haven't you heard? Everybody's saying that the Prime Minister is on the rocks. That signals political change --- just what we've been waiting for! Hallalujah. All we need to do is hang on just a bit longer to see how that all pans out. (And those troops coming home for Christmas amidst a media blitz not seen since 9/11 no doubt will make the Iraqis believe we are really serious about leaving. Neat huh?)
The troops coming home will be a part of a normal rotation, I'm sure, but the spin will be much different.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 4, 2007 10:57 AMI think you're missing the point of how this is supposed to help Bush keep the troops in Iraq.
You see, Bush really, really, really wants to bring the troops home. He has that desire in the bottom of his heart, and its not feigned---because Bush is a good Christian man who wouldn't lie.
Well, come December, unfortunately, Bush will not be able to engage in his heart's desire of bringing the troops home, because he needs to keep them there to keep us all from being slaughtered in our sleep by terrorists. It's very, very sad, and Bush is the most noblest President since Nixon or Lincoln because of the way he puts the country's well-being above his own personal happiness.
We are presiding over and enabling the ethnic cleansing of the mixed sunni--shia areas. These mixed areas (including Bagdahd) are now becoming essentially shi'ite and it strains credulity to think that Petraeus and our generalissimos are unaware of it. One can only presume they approve of it and that it is intentional.
This is the short term "equilibrium" the system was moving toward, and it will provide some (slight) lessening of carnage as the two sides survey the new landscape and plan the next stage of the Iraq civil war.
I'll predict the ME region's sunnis (the overwhelming branch of Islam) ain't gonna be likin' this here Iraq "development" very much. And the takfiri and al qaeda boys will have another new arrow in their quiver for ginning up their brand of terrorism. Oops!, but whatever.
We didn't invade Iraq to help "win" the War on Terra, that's fer shure. We invaded to "liberate" Iraq's oil from Saddam. But our hand in the destruction of sunni Iraq is all that's going to be remembered by the region's sunnis for decades, which will REALLY help the "hearts and minds" campaign.
Who cares what Bush says about Iraq, troop levels and "strategy" anymore? Cosmetic "changes", minor "reductions", brigade pull-outs, these are meaningless. At some point, some numbers cruncher in some Pentagon bureau will do some calculation, trot down to his superior and report that the Army and Marines are officially broken. That'll end "operational tempo", and Gates will inform Cheney that we're at the end of the line. The imperial troops will either hunker down into their permanent base-forts or start to be withdrawn in significant numbers.
When? Who knows? Closer with each passing day. Probably sometime in the next year. But it won't have anything to do with "politics" or "plans" in our failed "democracy". Troop levels and duration are technical matters of imperial occupation now, not political "choices" to be made by the "people" or their "representatives".
Posted by euzoius at September 4, 2007 11:48 AMWhy Iraq on that particular day? Could it be because he didn't want this to be the lead article on the US TV news and newspapers. If Basra gets no worse now that the British have pulled out of the city, how can he justify his claim that the US Army is preventing the situation in Iraq getting worse?
Posted by blowback at September 4, 2007 12:16 PMA problem with who? As Mr. 28% still gets whatever he wants, why should he worry about displeasing anything so meaningless as what the people think? He doesn't even have to face another public referendum on his performance.
Posted by Marie at September 4, 2007 12:45 PMOur insane Little Napoleon says that we will be able to start a limited partial withdrawal from the North Pole as soon as we have secured the polar region fom insurgent bears, i. e., when Hell freezes over...
Posted by james k. sayre at September 4, 2007 12:49 PMUnsubstantiated rumors (the best kind) have it that the reason Bush plans to pull some troops in the spring is to get them out of harm's way before the Iran invasion. Same mongerors say that's why Britain just bugged out.
Posted by merciless at September 4, 2007 01:54 PMRemember the only thing you can count on with Bush - everything is politically driven. There are no policy decisions. Cheney,otoh, is concerned with policy (devil's policy to be sure, but policy nonetheless) and could care less about politics (he recently said exactly that). So whatever comes out of Bush's mouth will have either had the Rove political filter applied or is just BushBabble, so just discard it as hot air. When Cheney says we need to bomb Iran, better listen up.
Posted by T2 at September 4, 2007 02:07 PMwe'll know in April, Bush will either have to withdraw troops or increase the service time to 18 months (it has already been raised from 15 to 18) or call up more Reserves/National Guard
Posted by gay veteran at September 4, 2007 03:01 PMYou of the center left? You gotta be kidding. You're so far left you're dangerous to all of us. When did you start being a hack and quit being an American?
What a waste of time you and this site are.
Posted by gotta be kidding at September 5, 2007 01:43 PMWhat a waste of time you and this site are.
And yet, here you are, pissing your pants over a blog post, scared of your own shadow. Poor thing, you need a cookie?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 5, 2007 01:49 PM