The political reality of troop withdrawals Posted by: McQ
on Saturday, November 26, 2005
Apparently the MSM is bound and determined to give war critics a lion's share of the credit for upcoming and planned troop withdrawals from Iraq. Although they are calling it a "convergence" of opinion (a nice way to word the timing of this I guess, don't know why they avoided "opportunism"), the LA Times also talks about relieving the "enormous pressure" brought by critics of the war:
Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.
In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.
The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.
It also follows agreement this week among Iraqi politicians that the U.S. troop presence ought to decrease. Meeting in Cairo, representatives of the three major ethnic and religious groups called for a U.S. withdrawal and recognized Iraqis' "legitimate right of resistance" to foreign occupation. In private conversations, Iraqi officials discussed a possible two-year withdrawal period, analysts said.
The "administration's pivot?" We just had the Democrats, when forced to go on the record, refuse to vote to get the troops out of Iraq immediately. I'm not sure what enormous pressure is being brought to bear by them. Perhaps, instead, it is the Republicans bringing such pressure, seeing their Congressional approval rating below that of the Presidents (and don't laugh Democrats, your poll numbers are below those of Congressional Republicans). Maybe it is the Republicans who are putting the pressure on the administration.
So while it may be a convergence of opinion, it is an absolutley coincidental convergence of that opinion with the reality that the troop withdrawl being announced has been planned for quite a while.
A task force headed by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad agreed yesterday on guidelines for the withdrawal of U.S. and other forces, with two key troop contributors planning major drawdowns by year's end.
"The key consideration is the capability of Iraqi security forces," said a U.S. military statement, which identified other members of the task force as U.S. Gen. George Casey Jr., the Iraqi ministers of interior and defense, Iraq's national security adviser and British Ambassador William Patey.
Other considerations include the capacity of local governments to control their areas and provide basic services, the U.S. command in Baghdad said. The commission is to deliver its final recommendations to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari by Sept. 26.
Note the highlighted sentence.
In June of this year, LTG John Vines, XVIII Airborne Corps commander said this as reported by the Washington Post:
"At this point, I would not be prepared to recommend a drawdown prior to the election, certainly not any significant numbers," Vines told reporters at the Pentagon in a phone link from Baghdad.
But looking past the end of the year, the general struck a note of optimism, reaffirming Casey's prediction in March that increased numbers of Iraqi security forces should allow for a fairly significant reduction in U.S. troops by early next year. "I think General Casey's assumption probably is still valid," he said. "I suspect we will probably draw down capability after the elections, because Iraqi security forces are more capable."
Asked whether the reductions could involve as many as four or five brigades, from the 17 currently in Iraq, Vines said: "It would probably be somewhere in that range. That would be my guess."
In August the Financial Times also announced that significant troop withdrawls were being planned for after the first of the year:
The US is expected to pull significant numbers of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months in spite of the continuing violence, according to the general responsible for near-term planning in the country.
Maj Gen Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, yesterday said the reductions were part of a push by Gen John Abizaid, commander of all US troops in the region, to put the burden of defending Iraq on Iraqi forces.
And of course the LA Times prefers to focus on this to support the "convergence" and "pressure" scenario:
As recently as late September, senior U.S. military commanders said during a congressional hearing that just one Iraqi battalion, about 700 soldiers, was considered capable of undertaking combat operations fully independent of U.S. support. Administration officials now dismiss that measure of readiness, saying more Iraqi units are able to conduct advanced operations each day.
Yet in August of this year, Gen. Barry McCaffery, who is about as independent a source as you can get, and someone who would definitely know how to asseess the status of training for Iraqi forces, had this to say on Meet the Press:
Well, Tim, to be honest, I'm reasonably optimistic about this. I talked to General George Casey in country and Dave Petraeus, the guy who's actually in charge of trying to build the Iraqi security forces. My judgment is today there's probably 110 battalions fielded, probably 36 of them are capable of taking a lead in active operations. But most of them are out there somewhere in the streets or in the rural countryside. They're a huge factor, and by next summer they're going to be very important. Now having said that, the key is not training, equipping, and deploying Iraqi security forces. It's getting a government for which they're willing to fight and die. That's more troublesome. That's more non-linear. But I actually believe that will probably happen by next summer also.
General Wayne Downing agreed. Note what he says about "one battalion" and the timeframe:
One of the key conditions is going to be the stand-up of the Iraqi army. As Barry pointed out, 36 good battalions now. A year ago, we only had one. Maybe three times that, maybe 108, 110 battalions ready by next summer. That would indicate that there's a possibility that you could start pulling U.S. forces out at that time.
Which brings us to the famous unnamed "senior US official" who conveniently puts it all into perspective for us:
A senior U.S. official said that in signaling hopes for a large drawdown next year, Rice was only "stating the obvious" this week.
"It looks like things are headed in the right direction to enable that to happen in 2006," said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
But he said those hopes could be derailed if there were setbacks. Among the upcoming markers is the Dec. 15 election for a permanent Iraqi government. Officials have said that violence is likely to increase before the vote. More than 100 U.S. troops have died in the month since the death toll reached 2,000.
U.S. officials hope that by the end of 2007, the remaining U.S. force will be small enough to not offend Iraqi sensibilities yet large enough to help Iraq's military with reconnaissance, intelligence gathering and air power.
Not only was Rice "stating the obvious" but what has been in the works for months based on the strategy in place in Iraq.
You know, the "conditions based" strategy which critics like to say doesn't exist. Even the President of Iraq pointed it out in September:
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged the United States on Friday not to withdraw hastily from Iraq and said U.S. forces should be reduced gradually over the next two years.
"For those who call for an immediate pull-out of American troops, we say that we honor the sacrifices the United States has made," Talabani said in a speech at a Washington hotel.
"A withdrawal of American and multinational forces in the near future could lead to the victory of the terrorists in Iraq and create grave threats to the region," he added.
Asked how long he would like U.S. and other forces to stay in Iraq, Talabani said the plan was to gradually reduce U.S. forces over the next two years.
"Not only would we need American forces to fight against terrorism, we need some of them to frighten our neighbors and prevent them from interfering in our internal affairs," he said.
For those still in doubt, I again refer you to General Vines who I paraphrased here in June of this year:
Or said as Vines said it, its a "conditions-based" strategy in which troop withdrawls are based on the condition (or status) of various institutions in Iraq. Such as:
1. The government (Constitution written? Election held? Government successfully formed?)
2. The military and police (able to mount independent battalion size offensive missions? Able to adequately defend themselves? Leadership working well?)
3. National capacity (able to support military operations logistically? able to train and refill military ranks?)
4. The infrastrucure (working adequately? Providing adequate services?)
So it's not so much a convergence as it is a band-wagon effect, where those who would like to take credit for political reasons are now going to try to spin any troop removal as something pressure here at home helped to make happen. In actuality, it's all about politics ... again.
The one glimmer of truth to be found in the LA Times article said:
Such an approach may be more acceptable to Republican candidates who are worried about next year's midterm election amid plummeting public support for the war and perhaps to GOP presidential candidates looking toward 2008.
Now that I believe.
But don't believe the title of the article at all: "U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq". The U.S. hasn't "started" any such thing, but instead has has been planning this for some time in accordance with its exit strategy.
Perhaps, instead, it is the Republicans bringing such pressure, seeing their Congressional approval rating below that of the Presidents (and don’t laugh Democrats, your poll numbers are below those of Congressional Republicans)
You know why Bush is back up to 46% approval and climbing (a fact you never see reported anywhere, it’s all "record low ratings" and "battered by sinking ratings" but thats a rant for another time)- it’s because like it or not, at least people see he has one position on Iraq and he’s sticking with it.
The GOP comes next because they sorta stick to a position, but they cravenly wobble, which never helps them
The Dems are dead last, because the public sees they have ZERO position on the issue of the day. They praise Murtha’s speech to the sky while running away from it furiously at the same time.
The public tends to notice this sort of thing, regardless of what side of the political aisle they’re on.
Bush is just doing whatever the winds dictate. With Cheney’s advice obviously flawed, other administration figures are able to fill the vaccuum and tell Bush what to do. As a result, Iraq policy is starting to look more and more like what top advisors have been saying and less and less like what Bush has been saying.
Obviously Iraq was a mistake from the start, no matter what kind of reason is provided for our initial and continued presence, it is obvious the entire scenario was doomed to failure.
I find it interesting that when Bush wants us to stay, there aren’t many Iraqi units ready to stand on their own. But now the winds blow the other way, "more and more" are trained and capable.
I think this just another spin in an endless litany of spins. What is so wrong with telling the truth? Will this scenario of administration half truths and misrepresentations and GOP lapdogs ever come clean?
Wingers have been playing both sides of the fence on this one. They SHOUT that Murtha is a coward for even daring to propose - propose - a 6-month timetable for withdraw. On the other hand, like Soviet-style propgandists, they go back and mine and re-interpret old reports and stories to show all along that they have been proposing a withdrawal themselves that - voila - just happens to coincide with the 11/2006.
If wingers really believed that the groundwork was already being laid for a troop withdrawal, and this has been going on for some time, then the proper response to Murtha would have been something along the following lines: "Representative Murtha is thinking along the same lines we are. While we disagree with the timing of his proposal, we do forsee pulling out significant numbers of troops in the next 6 months. Wea appreciate ghis input and his service to the country."
But instead we get "Coward" and "Cut and Run" and talk from the White House about how Murtha is Michael Moore all that crap.
If a Democrat proposes it, he is a traitor. If the White House does, it is a plan they have had in the works for months.
And the winger bloggers are happy to do their part.
Remember this:
Commander: Number of Iraq’s battle-ready battalions drops to 1
BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The commander of coalition forces in Iraq told a Senate committee Thursday that the number of battle-ready battalions in the Iraq military has dropped from three to one in the past three months, prompting senators to express concern over Pentagon plans to give the Iraqi military a larger role.
Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that personnel transfers brought about the reduction in Iraqi battalions - about 700 soldiers each - that can support themselves in battle.
"Things change in the battalions," Casey said. "I mean, we’re making assessments on personnel, on leadership, on training. ... There are a lot of variables that are involved here."
During a break in the hearing, Casey added that personnel changes within the battalions occurred "some time ago. I don’t have all the details."
This appeared to leave open the possibility that the actual number of Iraqi soldiers ready to operate on their own has not gone down, but that the soldiers have been dispersed among various battalions. But the vagueness of the Pentagon’s information made that hard to gauge.
Now, of course, "Administration officials now dismiss that measure of readiness, saying more Iraqi units are able to conduct advanced operations each day."
So what changed? Well, according to McQ, back in August, BEFORE Casey testified to the one batallion number in front of Congress, McCaffrey spoke with Casey. And based on that conversation, his "judgment is today there’s probably 110 battalions fielded, probably 36 of them are capable of taking a lead in active operations."
In other words, McQ relies on a second hand account of what Casey said in August of 2005 to show that what Casey himself said a month later was wrong. And what evidence does he cite to show that numbers have magically improved after September 2005?
Youe guessed it - NONE.
He simply relies on the word of unnamed "administration officials."
Look, I’m all for getting out of Iraq. And if the administration feels the need to lie and spin and make baseless and contradictory claims about Iraqi troop readiness, so be it. But let’s be frank about what is going on here. It’s still lies and spin and "dimissing" earlier estimates because they have now become politically inconvenient.
And let’s not forget that the "security forces" in Iraq are made up almost entirely of Shia militias not beholden to the central government, but to the fundamentalist mullahs who pull the strings.
Apples and oranges. What, of course you don’t point out is it isn’t an all or nothing game. There are certain levels to which we train the Iraqi battalions and we had 3 to level 1, but then apparently reassigned significant numbers of leaders from two of them to assign to other battalions to raise their proficiency.
That’s SOP stuff, MK.
And, of course, left out of your little fact free diatribe was this said by Casey on Sept 30th:
"Over the past 18 months, we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them," Casey said. Military figures show that there are about three dozen army and special police battalions rated at Level 2 or above, meaning they are taking the lead in combat as long as they have support from coalition forces.
And what did Gen Downing say?
One of the key conditions is going to be the stand-up of the Iraqi army. As Barry pointed out, 36 good battalions now. A year ago, we only had one. Maybe three times that, maybe 108, 110 battalions ready by next summer. That would indicate that there’s a possibility that you could start pulling U.S. forces out at that time.
3 dozen. 36. Doh!
But of course, you don’t know enough about this to sniff this sort of thing out do you?
And of course, that makes McCaffery precisely right, doesn’t it?
Well, Tim, to be honest, I’m reasonably optimistic about this. I talked to General George Casey in country and Dave Petraeus, the guy who’s actually in charge of trying to build the Iraqi security forces. My judgment is today there’s probably 110 battalions fielded, probably 36 of them are capable of taking a lead in active operations. But most of them are out there somewhere in the streets or in the rural countryside. They’re a huge factor, and by next summer they’re going to be very important. Now having said that, the key is not training, equipping, and deploying Iraqi security forces. It’s getting a government for which they’re willing to fight and die. That’s more troublesome. That’s more non-linear. But I actually believe that will probably happen by next summer also.
Yup, 36 are able to take the lead ... just exactly what Casey said, not only to McCaffery but to the Senate. So you have 1/3 of the fielded battalions able to take the lead in active operations IN SEPTEMBER up from one the previous year. Or said another way, we didn’t drop from 36 to 1 as the media spun it and you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
So who should I believe? Casey, Downing and McCaffery ... or you?
Heh ... Oh, and:
Youe [sic] guessed it - NONE.
Aptly describes your argument (although "zero" might be more appropriate).
The time may have arrived to travel to moonbat HQ and have your tinfoil hat refit if this bit of tripe is the best of which you’re capable.
If wingers really believed that the groundwork was already being laid for a troop withdrawal, and this has been going on for some time, then the proper response to Murtha would have been something along the following lines: "Representative Murtha is thinking along the same lines we are. While we disagree with the timing of his proposal, we do forsee pulling out significant numbers of troops in the next 6 months. Wea [sic] appreciate ghis [sic] input and his service to the country."
Well, in MK land perhaps. Stating that "we do foresee pulling out significant numbers of troops in the next 6 months" will quickly mutate into "we will pull out significant numbers of troops in the next 6 months" in a fashion similar to "we cannot wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat" became "Saddam is an imminent threat".
In their minds it’s an easy sell for the MSM. They’ve sold the idea the we are (a) there forever as tyrants bleeding the country for oil, or (b) we’ve had no plan, and/or (c) we’re in a quagmire that we can never leave.
So when Democrats push for withdrawl, their pre-existing mindset makes it easy for them to believe that is what actually prompted it.
I have a better idea for this coincidence. The Democrats caught wind of withdrawl announcements on the horizon. And rather than allow the Republicans to start annoucing the withdrawl they decided to steal the show and take credit with this recent stunt.
A leak in today’s day & age for number of people involved in assessing and arranging a troop withdraw is relatively easy to believe.
You know why Bush is back up to 46% approval and climbing (a fact you never see reported anywhere, it’s all "record low ratings" and "battered by sinking ratings" but thats a rant for another time)- it’s because like it or not, at least people see he has one position on Iraq and he’s sticking with it.
I figured they’d climb up when gas prices dropped.
Where is there a poll showing Bush at 46%? The latest poll was a Cook Political Report poll that showed him at 41%, which is the only time I’ve ever seen this polling outfit ask the question. That poll was conducted 11/17-20. This website is pretty up-to-date on Bush’s poll numbers, and it doesn’t hide any results.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
On Iraqi troop readiness, I don’t believe anybody knows the full truth. I don’t trust the generals to tell the truth. I don’t trust so-called independent experts like McCaffrey. And, for that matter, I don’t trust those who think the Iraqi army is basically non-existent, either. We just won’t know how capable and willing the Iraqi army is until it goes out into Ramadi and takes on the insurgents with no US backup to speak of, and then holds the city indefinitely. Everything else is just spin.
Ease up on MK. Being DNC talking points driven is not an easy row to hoe. Yeah, the basics are pretty easy, but at times like this when things are in a flux and the DNC doesn’t know what is the most politically expedient, and therefore has issued no orders, MK must sort of fake it until the new talking points are issued and they tell MK what MK thinks. It is ridiculous for MK to suggest that, after the Democrats carefully plan a strategy designed to undermine the Republicans (war effort be damned, but that is another point) they should respond to their opponent’s spokesperson after he takes his shot:
“Wea (sic) appreciate ghis (sic) input and his service to the country."
Let’s see, that would be under the oft-practiced political rule of “turn the other cheek”?
“But instead we get "Coward" and "Cut and Run" and talk from the White House about how Murtha is Michael Moore (sic) all that crap.”
Duh.
“…it is a plan they have had in the works for months.”
Now, before braying, a normal person would check the record and discover that, yes indeed, the plan has been in the works for months. MK eschews such a logical step and proceeds to full cocoon-belief-reinforcement mode. The DNC talking points state that there is no exit strategy and therefore MK must deny the existence of the conditions-based exit strategy, facts be damned. How dare the Republicans offer truth instead of cocoon lies!
In a lucid moment, MK owns up to her method of communication:
“But let’s be frank about what is going on here. It’s still lies and spin…”
Otherwise, the confusion of the DNC is evident from the lack of coherence in their spokesperson’s (MK’s) scattered comment. Hang on, MK, marching orders are on the way.
