republicans angling for a 'symbolic reduction in troops -- 'a gesture'

[bigtree]

. . . just to clear the headlines and make it look like they're ending it in time for the presidential election cycle. Cover for recalcitrant republicans.


Petraeus To Recommend Troop Drawdown In Spring

(CBS) WASHINGTON The top U.S. commander in Iraq says he wants to continue the troop buildup there until next spring, amid divisions in the Bush administration over whether to bring some forces home months earlier than that.

When he delivers a much-anticipated report to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David Petraeus said he expects to advise that there could be a gradual reduction of forces beginning in the spring because of some of the successes achieved so far with the escalation ordered by President Bush in January.

"Based on the progress our forces are achieving, I expect to be able to recommend that some of our forces will be redeployed without replacement," Petraeus said in an e-mail to the Boston Globe and published in its Friday editions.

"The bottom line is that ... I do not envision that the U.S. would need to send more troops," he said, adding that commanders are planning for how remaining troops will be deployed around Iraq "as the surge of forces inevitably runs its course."

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that administration officials said Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker recommended to Bush that he stand by his current war strategy.

But they also said that Bush was considering a symbolic reduction in troops by year's end. Sen. John Warner, R.-Va., a former Armed Services Committee chairman, Navy secretary and key player on military issues on Capitol Hill, also has suggested that some troops be brought home by Christmas as a gesture.

Bush himself suggested that modest troop cuts may be possible if military successes continue, but he gave no timeline or specific numbers. Speaking to reporters Wednesday during his attendance at the APEC summit in Australia, he restated his view that decisions about troop levels should be based on recommendations from military commanders.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_250095140.html

[rodeodance]

1. damm, they all make me sick right now (7 more troops blown up while they play)

[whistle]

2. Actually to achieve that all the repukes have to do is leave the troops in Iraq

...and just not replace the killed and wounded :hurts: :sarcasm:

[bryant69]

3. There's your compromise I suppose

Frusterating.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bigtree]

5. I think that getting ANY troops out of Iraq is a worthwhile effort

but, it's clearly not going to be enough to just reduce the force by as many as would have left anyway in a normal rotation. The goal is to END the occupation. That's the type of compromise I believe we should support; one that has a reasonable chance of bringing the occupation to its inglorious end, not some PR stunt.

[MrModerate]

4. And the insurgents will wreck any phony "progress" Petreus reports . . .

Because they know that an occupying force cannot defeat or outlast indigenous insurgents without strong and effective support from indigenous official forces and their government (à la Malaya circa 1950). The US doesn't have that support, and given how Iraqi society has completely shredded post-Saddam, we'll never have it.

All the insurgents need to do is keep on keeping on, and we'll go home sometime in 2009 if not sooner. Then they can get down to the serious business of a major civil war/ethnic cleansing/partition that our ham-handed "regime change" has made inevitable.

And the US people just won't buy it as a success. They might not be paying attention to politics, but they can tell a train wreck when they drive past.

[durablend]

6. The acid test being in November (2008)

Do they accept more of the same (vote red) or accept sorta more of the same (vote blue)?

[MrModerate]

8. Even if a 'Lican wins in 2008 . . .

It'll be impossible (resource-wise and politically) to keep anything like a major presence in Iraq. He'll have to disengage with the least embarassment possible -- because regardless of how they're talking now, after the 'Lican nominee is selected, he'll run away from Bushism and the Iraq War as fast as possible.

You can't win the presidency with 29% of the vote.

[bigtree]

9. It will be interesting to see whether the voters actually reject candidates

. . . who aren't strident enough in opposing the occupation. I don't think there was as much of a debate among the electorate (and among the candidates) about 'gradual withdrawal' vs. 'immediate withdrawal', for example, as there is today.

As for red and blue, I'm hoping there is enough realization of republican obstinacy on Iraq that voters just reject them out of hand in favor of Democrats pledged to vote to completely end the occupation.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Someone brought up recently that running on an end-the-war platform

was going to be a loser, just like McGovern. People may want it to happen, but they don't really care who does it, or care about the specific details--just make it go away. That's why I'm glad our candidates don't bring it up constantly or go overboard on it (except Biden and Kucinich)--make it a central theme, and suddenly people associate the candidate with something really divisive and negative, which is never a winning strategy.

[bigtree]

7. I agree that Americans aren't interested in tweaking the occupation

. . . they just want it to end.