The commander in charge of troops in Iraq, General George W. Casey Jr., has set forth a plan for withdrawl of US troops in that country.
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq.
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq’s six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected. (Source)
If one is to believe the recent rhetoric of the right-wingnuts – that a withdrawl from Iraq is “cut and run” and treasonous- by proposing a withdrawl of troops from Iraq (a plan remarkably similar to one proposed by Congressional Democrats who were immediately called traitors for doing so) then isn’t Gen. Casey a traitor as well?
Just wondering.
This isn’t new. Think Progress was on this White House tactic like white on rice last fall. So was The Talking Dog. So was Political Wire. It’s smoke and mirrors.
It has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with the GOP and White House controlling perceptions of who is in control of the war and who is not. We need to reclaim the playing field, reclaim the debate and reclaim the policy.
In that vein, Avedon at The Sidewhow has some interesting thoughts:
But TRex at Firedoglake says that even having that conversation is letting the GOP frame the issues, and that we have to go more directly onto the offensive. I agree; I do well in debates because I don’t accept the terms of a question that’s wrong to start with.To whit:
A Republican says, “All you liberals are cut-and-run traitors! You don’t support the troops!”
Instead of frantically beginning to tap dance and show that you’re not a traitor and that you do support the troops, you fire back, “Why are you Republicans such cowards? Your leaders are all draft-dodgers who’ve never fired a shot at anything but a bunch of canned quails and old lawyers. You’re using the troops as human shields against the midterm elections! Do you like seeing our brave men and women in uniform slaughtered and killed? Or are you just too much of a coward to face the consequences of your failed policies in Iraq? Which is it? Do you just hate the soldiers or do you hate your constituents?”
There. You have just put the burden of proof on the Repugnican that he/she isn’t a coward and that they don’t hate the troops. Then you set up a false dichotomy that they can’t answer without looking like a fool.
(It’s a false dichotomy because the answer to both is, “Yes,” and one is part and parcel of the other.)
The GOP and the WH own the game. The Democrats have been eliminated from the game because the White Hosue controls the ball/message.
From Elenore Clift in Newsweek:
It’s appalling that an administration led by chicken hawks dares to build an election strategy based on lecturing combat veterans, but it is devilishly clever, and it might work. The Swift Boat veterans destroyed Kerry in 2004; and in 2002, losing three limbs in Vietnam didn’t save Georgia Sen. Max Cleland from attacks on his patriotism. Rove told the GOP faithful that if the Democrats were in charge, Iraq would fall to the terrorists and Zarqawi would not be dead. As offensive as those words are, Rove is doing his job, which is sliming the Democrats so Republicans can cling to power on Capitol Hill. He is politicizing the war for partisan political gain, a strategy that could backfire if events on the ground in Iraq deteriorate.“They’re risk-takers,” says Matt Bennett of Third Way, a Democratic centrist group. “Did they risk politicizing 9/11 by holding their convention in New York? Yes, and the risk paid off. It’s very Rovean; they’re trying to turn a weakness into a strength.” Another Democratic strategist noted the irony that after four years of no accountability on the mistakes made in prosecuting the Iraq war, the administration was hanging Democrats out to dry. This strategist called it “reverse accountability—shift the blame to those not in charge.”
The WH knows that troop withdrawl plans in simply an inevitable fact of reality. This is not news. So, they must control that idea and the perception around it. What better way to do that than to actually portray withdrawl as treasonous and label all plans to do so that will surely be proffered by the Democrats as such. Meanwhile, all real plans to withdraw from Iraq will be dealt with solely by the Pentagon and Centcom. Smartly, the White House keeps it’s fingers out of the debate entirely. Say one thing, do another. Control the perception of everything you do. Make it a negative, do it while accussing the opposition of doing it.
In order to own the playing field, the Democrats have to get possession of the ball. In this case, the ball is wining the war in Iraq to the degree that we can get the hell out. Redeployment and a Plan to Win. Not by pounding the military options into the desert, but by dealing with Iraq and the ME as a heightened diplomatic policy.
That means international support. Something the current President simply may be incapable of doing. He was unable to put together a true internation coalition after 9/11. It is doubtful he can do it now.
Democratic leaders have to get away from responding to GOP trick plays and start a brand new game.
No related posts.