PNAC vetoed an early Iraq pullout

[bluestateguy]

The real policymakers are Gary Schmitt and Bill Kristol.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/troops-20050713.htm

July 12, 2005

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS


FROM: William Kristol & Gary Schmitt


SUBJECT: Bring The Troops Home?


Yesterday’s front page of the Washington Post carried a story about a classified memo from Britain’s defense minister to Prime Minister Tony Blair detailing “emerging U.S. plans” to reduce by half the number of soldiers in Iraq by next summer. This would leave American troop levels at around 66,000. The Pentagon has denied there are any fixed plans as yet and reductions will depend on conditions in Iraq.

cut

But the cost of reducing troop levels in Iraq or Afghanistan will be high. Neither Iraq’s nor Afghanistan’s militaries will be ready to take on the burden of fighting their respective insurgencies in the time frame Secretary Rumsfeld is pushing for. Creating new and effective institutions like an Iraqi or Afghan army takes time, as does fighting an insurgency. Neither task here is at all impossible but, if rushed, we do risk ultimate failure for lack of patience.


Secretary Rumsfeld has time and again said that he defers to his generals in Iraq about the number of troops needed. No one vaguely familiar with how decisions are made in this Pentagon believes that to be the case. And, indeed, as visiting members of Congress and military reporters have repeatedly reported from Iraq, the military officers there know quite well that more troops are needed, not less.


The British memo notes that, while Pentagon officials favor “a relatively bold reduction,” the battlefield commanders “approach is more cautious.” That is one way to put it. Another would be to say that Secretary Rumsfeld is putting the president’s strategic vision at risk, while those soldiering in Iraq are trying to save a policy in the face of inadequate resources.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Well, I didn't vote for those 2 clowns, why are they making our

foreign policy???

[ET Awful]

2. The president's strategic vision?

The closest he has to a strategic vision is when he's deciding which crayon to use next in his coloring book.

[Wetzelbill]

3. these guys are the "true believers"....

Kristol once said that he felt over a quarter million U.S. casualties would be acceptable in fulfilling this mission.

These guys know that a pullout of troops, especially that early on in the game would mean that permanent American bases in Iraq and the ability of U.S. soldiers to perform constabulary duties would come into questions.

Also, aside from the True Believers you have the really greedy elements in the Neo-Con world, somebody like Dick Cheney, who would knife his own mother just to make a buck. Cheney isn't the Believer that a Kristol or a Wolfowitz may be, but he's important because he sees energy as an endgame. The True Believers do as well, but mainly as a means to attain Pax Americana. They won't to enforce peace and democracy at the end of a gun barrel, a guy like Cheney pretty much don't give a fuck about much else than the almighty dollar. A slight difference between these guys. But, yeah, they all have a messed up vision of reality.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Well if THEY say so