So, our selected Commander-in-Chief (there can be but one) appeared at another venue guaranteed to present our 21st century Happy Warrior with a favorable, applauding audience. The Brigade of Midshipmen were pleased to be excused from classes so that they could listen to our Steely Eyed Rocket Man explain the latest spin on how we’re gonna pretend to get Iraq on its feet while making sure the Big Bucks Republican recipients of our tax dollars continue to gorge on the public largesse. I often wonder whether he realizes how specious the entire charade is. Probably. He’s not as stupid as many people think. He’s just inarticulate when he has to lie in public without a script.
Some kind of psychological block, I assume.
I didn’t hear the entire speech, mercifully. Daily therapy is a demanding master and it was quickly time for the torture of the body to replace the torture of the mind.
George Bush begins his fighting retreat.
Mr Wolcott has an interesting take on the whole thing:
Everyone seems to agree that despite Bush's vainglorious posturing about achieving victory in Iraq (his "determined jaw" sure must be getting tired), he's going to be presiding over a backdoor bug-out choreographed to look like an orderly withdrawal which will fool no one except the remaining lemmings at Lucianne.com
He refers to Fred Kaplan writing in Slate.com:
"The question is: How does [Bush] plan to do it? Which troops will come out first? How quickly? Where will they go? Under what circumstances will they be put back in? Which troops will remain, and what will they do? How will they keep a profile low enough to make the Iraqi government seem genuinely autonomous yet high enough to help deter or stave off internal threats? Who will keep the borders secure, a task for which the Iraqi army doesn't even pretend to have the slightest capability? What kinds of diplomatic arrangements will he make with Iraq's neighbors—who have their own conflicting interests in the country's future—to assure an international peace?"
Some troops have to be withdrawn, certainly. The political realities of a Republican Party, is disarray over myriad ethical and criminal investigations and shattered by loss of public confidence requires a reassignment of morally exhausted troops back to the US. I think we’ll see some sort of relief in the stop-loss requirements for the troops withdrawn, too.
The States, which really like to keep their Reserve and National Guard troops local for emergencies, have been bitching a lot, behind the scenes. I suspect the WH is tired of hearing complaints from Governors.
I think they will do what they did in Viet Nam. Back during Mr Nixon’s famous “drawdown” when “units” were withdrawn, what happened was that some short-timers were transferred to the units selected to return to the US. Long-term troops were transferred out to replace them. Americans got to see lots of footage of GIs trooping the colors, and then marching off to waiting planes, as regimental colors were ceremoniously furled and also flown back to the US. Technically, 3 or 4 brigades were “drawn down” this way within 3 months, as I remember. Realistically, about 3,000 troops with less than 45 days left in country got early returns.
So we may see some Reserve units ceremoniously returned, too.
The numbers game is a possible interim strategy although you’re not going to be able to mix active duty and reserve component units so easily.
The other trick, of course, is to hunker down in these massively reinforced “enduring bases” we were told about. No one’s seen them and reported about them, but that might be because it’s a death warrant for any press to venture outside the Green Zone in Baghdad. No American print or electronic media leave to out into “Injun territory” which is now the 437,072 square kilometers of Iraq, less the 2 square kilometers of the Green Zone. That’s a lot of area to hide 14 enduring bases in, right? I mean, it’s the size of California. (That’s a handy factoid I remember from when we were being alibi’d on why no one had found the phantom Weapons of Mass Disappearance that were so earnestly sought by Judith Miller, and her loyal vassals in the 75th Exploitation Task Force.)
In the above paragraph I emphasize "American Media" because our national media is in the bag for the Republican Party. Stuff reported in media from other countries is verboten inside the US. Only happy news, please, unless you want us to get the FCC to stomp all your plans for further amalgamation!
Those bases have to be out there, somewhere. I mean, there’s like $15 Billion unaccounted for in the Iraq investment for Big Oil. All of that $15 Billion couldn’t have ended up in bank accounts in Bahrain, Liechtenstein, and the Bahamas, surely. Some of it must have been spent on something, right?
Comments
Take the various items circulating around for the last six months to a year, add water, stir and you come up with one conclusion: We're Out.
Item No. 1:
The only we can stay in Iraq in appreciable numbers for more than a year or so is to restore the draft. That ain't happening ever;
Item No. 2:
The recent Arab League conference had all three groups of Iraqis -- Sunnis, Shias and Kurds -- agreeing that: a) we need to get out; b) the locals have the right of self-defense, including shooting us.
Condi Rice's response to 2b. was that she didn't really have a problem with that.
Point: The conference has authorized the Iraqi government to start talking seriously to the Sunnis about a deal to calm the place down. Why? See . . .
Item No. 3:
Just before Ahmad Chalabi was attending not - publicized high - level talks in DC a couple of weeks ago, he was attending not - publicized high - level talks in Tehran.
Item No. 4:
The uniformed military has gone public in the person of one Jack Murtha to make it clear we've got to leave Iraq soon or the Army for sure and the USMC for maybe are going to be irretrievably
broken.
However, the military knows that "leaving Iraq soon" means leaving with adequate force protection, which in turn means leaving in such a way that the remaining units don't have to engage in a fighting withdrawal a la the Chosin Resevoir.
One way to ensure that is to arrange for a cease - fire with the enemy. Therefore . . .
Add Items Nos. 2 and 3 together and you get the outlines of a deal Dear Leader is trying to strike with the Sunnis and the Iranians -- they let us leave without taking us on as the numbers of troops in country are reduced in exchange for . . . us leaving. That's why this morning we suddenly heard about a new category of Iraqis -- "rejectionists". That's somebody Dear Leader can try to cut a deal with and yet not be accused of "dealing with the terrorists."
Item No. 5:
Everything else that Dear Leader babbles about is a smokescreen for the fact that we're leaving. Per Karl, the pace at which we will be leaving will almost certainly be dictated by domestic politics:
If the deal gets struck, we'll be below 100,000 by the first Tuesday in November, 2006 and completely out by the first Tuesday in November, 2008.
The timing for Karl is important -- being totally out just before the 2008 election gives the Repubs enough time to capitalize on having gotten out but not enough time for them to be blamed when Iraq descends into the civil war which it inevitably will after we leave.
Post a comment