Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 25, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

IS APRIL THE END OF THE LINE?....Matt Yglesias has browsed through the Iraq white paper from the new CNAS think tank and comes away unimpressed. The best he can muster is that for a bunch of establishment weenies, it's slightly better than you might expect. Then there's this:

The conceit of the report is that the Bush administration will take their advice seriously and begin the process of withdrawing troops and transition to a training mission this very summer. That's a fun conceit, obviously, but equally obviously Bush doesn't care — at all — about what these people think, what's right for the country, what's right for Iraq, what's right for America's soldiers, or anything else.

Now, I agree with this — although I don't actually doubt that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country. But it's odd that there have been two major stories in the past couple of days making exactly the opposite point.

On Sunday the New York Times reported that in addition to Gen. Petraeus's much-awaited report in September, there are going to be a whole bunch of others too. This initially struck me as nothing more than a way to generate lots of conflicting advice so that Bush can continue to do whatever he wants, but at least a few of the Times' sources don't see it that way. They see it as providing cover for the start of a withdrawal:

"The issue now is when do we start withdrawing troops and at what pace," one senior administration official said. "Petraeus wants as much time as he can get," the official said, but added that "the president may not have the leeway" to give him that time.

The reality, officials said, is that starting around April the military will simply run out of troops to maintain the current effort. By then, officials said, Mr. Bush would either have to withdraw roughly one brigade a month, or extend the tours of troops now in Iraq and shorten their time back home before redeployment. The latter, said one White House official, "is not something the president wants to do" and would likely become a centerpiece of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Hmmm. April is a drop dead date? I've been hearing for at least the past couple of years that the military is close to the breaking point in Iraq, and yet that breaking point never seems to happen. This is an unusually flat statement, though.

Then, today, the LA Times ran this story:

With public support of the war dropping, President Bush has authorized an internal policy review to find a plan that could satisfy opponents without sacrificing his top goals, the officials said.

The president and senior officials "realize they can't keep fighting this over and over," said one administration official, who along with others declined to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly or because decisions were pending.

We've heard this kind of talk before as well, and it's never amounted to anything. Still, two big stories in major newspapers on successive days suggests that, at the least, the administration is suddenly eager to start market testing the idea of some kind of compromise over Iraq. Election season might have something to do with this, though probably only at the margins. So what is it?

Has the military really given Bush a firm April deadline? I haven't heard this anywhere else, but it would certainly explain Bush's sudden search for a withdrawal option. Stay tuned.

Kevin Drum 12:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Has the military really given Bush a firm April deadline? I haven't heard this anywhere else, but it would certainly explain Bush's sudden search for a withdrawal option.

No it hasn't. If it did, Peter Pace was the one that delivered it, for which he was fired and we'll have no more talk of that thank you.

Bush is not leaving Iraq. Leaving means losing, and he's not going to lose. Honestly there was a post on Dkos that cited articles in June of EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS with the exact same "pulling out soon, looking for an exit strategy, etc..." theme. Really, he's not going to leave, I promise.

Posted by: IMU on June 25, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, it was every year for the last FOUR years, not five.

Here's the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/23/18542/8624

Posted by: IMU on June 25, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Has the military really given Bush a firm April deadline?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Would it matter? Bush doesn't care for navigation advice from others, especially if it conflicts with the direction he's already rowing the canoe. The surest way for the military to remain bogged down in Iraq is to press Bush for withdrawal. Bush is like every 5 year old brat that will do the opposite of what you ask out of plain stubborness, that and the knowledge it will piss you off to boot.

Posted by: steve duncan on June 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

If April were a "drop-dead date" in terms of the Army/Marines' combat personnel situation withdrawal would actually have to begin before then. Waiting until the last minute and then beginning a drawdown would create precisely what the administration wants to avoid if there was an upsurge in violence as the withdrawal began -- because the forces in Iraq could not respond to it without extending deployments and shortening units' time stateside.

Posted by: Zathras on June 25, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

You already quoted the NY Times saying it's not a firm deadline, since tours can be extended and time back in the U.S. shortened.

However, withdrawing a brigade a month would only reduce the U.S. force to about 120,000 by the end of next year -- pretty much where we were a year ago. That would put the job of really withdrawing where GWB wants it -- on his successor.

Posted by: penalcolony on June 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason Bush has for taking soldiers out of Iraq is sending them into Iran.

Posted by: Brojo on June 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it time to be saying "Cheney" whenever "Bush" is supposed to be said?

Posted by: bleat my little pictionary bleat on June 25, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Has the military really given Bush a firm April deadline?

I certainly hope not. George W Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. Bush gets to tell the military what to do, not the other way around. If the military has given Bush a deadline, this would be treason, and they should be court martialed for insubordination and unwillingness to follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: Al on June 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy.
Charlie Brown.
Football.

---------

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on June 25, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

What would be an indicator of passing the "breaking point"?

Perhaps a suicide bombing attack at the Baghdad Hotel, in the Green Zone?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 25, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone remember the controversy of the "selective service registration" of the 1980s? It was brilliantly executed as a way to register the youth of America for a draft, if need be, and I believe it could be utilized to bring 200,000 men into the military without too much fuss.

Instead of doing it by income bracket, age, or education level, simply draft the men by state--red state vs blue state.

Once 200,000 men from BLUE STATES, which don't contribute much to our nation's defence, are in uniform, public support for THE TROOPS will increase. They don't even have to be deployed to the war zone. Have them serve in Germany or Korea in lieu of an actual patriotic American who WANTS to serve their country in a time of war.

Problem solved! Next issue, please. I'm on a roll.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 25, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

I wish everyone would stop kidding themselves that the U.S. is going to withdraw from Iraq until every molecule of petroleum is pumped out of the ground. Irrespective of which political party is in office. It should be abundantly clear by now that Big Oil runs the United States, not any man or political party. Until we have a revolution, this will not change.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I wish everyone would stop kidding themselves that the U.S. is going to withdraw from Iraq until every molecule of petroleum is pumped out of the ground. Irrespective of which political party is in office. It should be abundantly clear by now that Big Oil runs the United States, not any man or political party. Until we have a revolution, this will not change.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

We are not still in Iraq because of poor planning or bumbling follow-up, but because establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq was our real intent to begin with. Cheney is willing to absorb all the accusations of ineptitude as the price of concealing the real plan.

He doesn't give a shit about democracy in the USA, so he damned sure doesn't in Iraq. He doesn't give a shit about Saddam,Osama, WMDs, human rights, or anything other than this:

He wants the army next to the oil.


Posted by: chance on June 25, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

> If the military has given Bush a deadline, this would be treason, and they should be court martialed for insubordination and unwillingness to follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.

Drumsville regulars: this "Al" character... he's a parody, right?

Posted by: Dan on June 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 25, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

September, 2007 + 1 F.U. = April, 2008

Posted by: lampwick on June 25, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Stories about Bush pulling out of Iraq are like Waiting for Godot. People talk, nothing happens. Godot never comes, Bush never leaves.

That's all there is to know. The rest is wishful thinking, and wishing it so doesn't make it true.

Posted by: JJF on June 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK
I'm on a roll. Norman Rogers at 1:07 PM
Get that breakfast croissant stuck up your bum again? I warned you about too much booze before dinner. Posted by: Mike on June 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

...although I don't actually doubt that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country.

I suspect the country as a whole rarely even crosses his consciousness.

Posted by: shortstop on June 25, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "...although I don't actually doubt that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country."

Another example of wishing thinking. There is simply no evidence to think Bush is acting on behalf of what he thinks is best for the country. None.

Posted by: JJF on June 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

None of this means anything unless and until Cheney starts talking about withdrawal.

Never gonna happen.

Posted by: Tom O on June 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Dan,

Yes, but the spiral has been so gradual I think it slipped past the moderators.

I hope someone has been paying attention to the language in that immigration bill concerining military service and legalization.

Posted by: B on June 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever happened to Douglas Lute?

Posted by: Huntly on June 25, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

One line jumped out at me:

"Now, I agree with this — although I don't actually doubt that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country."


How can you say that? I'll accept that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the people on Barbara Bush's Christmas Card list, but for the country? He's broken the army, and is bankrupting the country. Unless he's a complete idiot, and I really don't believe that, he knows he's a failure, but has no idea what to do about it.

The Cheney Administration is simply running out the clock so that their Democratic successor can be blamed for losing the war.

Posted by: Slideguy on June 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

To paraphrase Trotsky, This administration may not care for reality, but reality cares for this administration.
With the series on Cheney, in the Washington Post, I think we really are seeing what amounts to a coup d'etat and the Vp's bunker is turning into a prison cell. The Republican party is out to save itself.

Posted by: brodix on June 25, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 25, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

No need to apologize. It's not you. I'm convinced it's Kevin's new (somewhat sad and desparate) method to try to boost posts here and hid the truly striking drop in comments on these threads recently. C'mon, Kevin! You can do better than that. And by the way, I see you posting about Iraq again. Kevin, Kevin. As one of the original cheerleaders IN FAVOR of the Iraq invasion, don't you think you should just stop digging your hole on this topic? This just isn't the kind of thing you are qualified to comment on. Keep to the domestic stuff.

Posted by: Pat on June 25, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Now, I agree with this — although I don't actually doubt that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country.
Go wash your mouth out with soap. And your keyboard, too.

Posted by: Qwerty on June 25, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:"...I don't actually doubt that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country."

Duly noted without comment.


Posted by: gregor on June 25, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

It's political jujitsu. They're feinting with faint hope. Don't be taken in.

Posted by: Mellifluous on June 25, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Stay tuned.

The big report will be delivered to Congress in September, and the decisions will be made by Congress. If the surge is sufficiently successful, drawdowns will begin at least as early as next April as Bush claims credit for the success. Otherwise, I expect Congress will have to order drawdowns on its own initiative.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 25, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think Norman Rogers is entirely right about the military manpower of Blue States being negligible, it seems to me I have seen a fair few Iraq casualties from places in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. Only a database search would tell for sure. But the Blue States' contributions to the war effort are far larger than the Reds' in monetary terms, since with the notable exception of Texas, nearly all of the Red States are net takers from the federal govt, while the Blue States are (big time) net givers. There is of course a correlation here. In poorer states with fewer opportunities for advancement in education or jobs, a military career is seen as more attractive, both in itself and as a pathway to education and training for a career. This is not new, I reckon it goes back to Civil War times. jhh

Posted by: jhh on June 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Slideguy >"...he knows he's a failure..."

Actually he has been a great success as has Schrödinger's Dick (as in Mr. Cheney - see here)

They have accomplished EXACTLY what our nation state`s bankers wanted to accomplish, which was destroy the basis of our military power & the global perception that we are a nation of laws so that other powers (nation states) can become the next "King of the Ant Hill" without a very messy hot war

Note for the delusional & uninformed; "...our nation state`s bankers..." = those that hold our debt (China et al)

The anti-NATO is, of course, also part of this round of "The Great Game"

Tzu knew

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

Posted by: daCascadian on June 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

We are not going to withdraw from Iraq for a very long time, rather in April we'll pullback to the four megabases with about 80K rapid reaction forces and support. We'll keep training Iraqi forces and hitting AQ. Maliki is govt will wither on the vine and die, and the Shites with cleanse the Sunnis. What a mess, George, what a mess.

Posted by: The fake fake all on June 25, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

"The big report" should always be written in flashing caps, underscored and boldfaced - anything to make it look like a Vegas marquis because, it will be, after all, THE BIG REPORT. I'm sure it will change everything.

Posted by: eRobin on June 25, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the bluest of blue states, California, has lost the most by far, with 412 deaths. Followed by blue states Pennsylvania (181) and New York (177).

Here is a link to a map and a breakdown by state, on one page.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

it seems to me I have seen a fair few Iraq casualties from places in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. Only a database search would tell for sure.
Yes if only there was some easily searchable repository of information which would enable me to find that out.

If it were to appear in graphic form it might be especially helpful...
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_CITY.aspx

/lern2googlenewb

Posted by: IMU on June 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Oops - Tezxas is second - with 341.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 25, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

the conservative deflator: I wish everyone would stop kidding themselves that the U.S. is going to withdraw from Iraq until every molecule of petroleum is pumped out of the ground. Irrespective of which political party is in office. It should be abundantly clear by now that Big Oil runs the United States, not any man or political party. Until we have a revolution, this will not change.

this is why I always advocate in favor of building up all possible domestic sources of fuel.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 25, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK
I haven't heard this anywhere else, but it would certainly explain Bush's sudden search for a withdrawal option.

Yeah, the Friedman Unit ending next spring will really be the last Friedman unit.

Just like the one ending this spring was going to be, and just like, until recently, the one ending this fall was supposed to be.

Or, maybe, there's always just one more Friedman Unit, and there's always, just before one Friedman Unit ends, "big stories in major newspapers" suggesting that there is real movement in the administration that heralds the next Friedman Unit as really and truly the last.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 25, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Also interesting is the Administration's and media's rhetorical shift to calling the insurgency al Qaida coupled with this poll showing that 41% of Americans still believe Saddam was behind 9-11. It's another example of the power of a corrupt government whose every atrocity is blessed by the right wing media
Withdraw? Bush/Cheney are just beginning.

Posted by: Mike on June 25, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

As to the military breaking, I don't know if it's relevant but in FY04, the Army spent around $56 million on enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses; in FY05, that figure was $450 million and in FY06, it was over $1 billion.

Posted by: TJM on June 25, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Talk is cheap.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on June 25, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

With public support of the war dropping, President Bush has authorized an internal policy review to find a plan that could satisfy opponents without sacrificing his top goals, the officials said.

Goals? GWB has *goals* wrt Iraq? This is the first time I have heard anything about that. What are these goals pray-tell? Perhaps some intrepid reporter could be assigned to try to dig out that gem.

Posted by: Disputo on June 25, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

it seems to me I have seen a fair few Iraq casualties from places in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. Only a database search would tell for sure.

About two years ago I did the math, and the numbers KIA in Iraq were roughly equally pulled from Red and Blue states. I doubt that that has changed significantly since then.

Posted by: Disputo on June 25, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Otherwise, I expect Congress will have to order drawdowns on its own initiative.

What the hell are you talking about, Marler? Congress can't "order drawdowns on its own initiative;" all it can do is defund the war -- a fact that you've chortled about since the Democrats took over Congress, you jackass.

Posted by: Gregory on June 25, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Election season might have something to do with this, though probably only at the margins.

Why only at the margins?

Public support for the war is so low that war supporters are likely to suffer considerable losses in the next election if the war is still raging at current levels.

Congress can't "order drawdowns on its own initiative;" all it can do is defund the war --

I don't know why you think that Congress can not order drawdowns. They can do so by reducing funding levels. They can prohibit spending on particular items, such as fuel for aircraft, or the shipment of ammunition. They can require all kinds of limits on deployment of the troops. A president who disobeyed could be impeached, especially a president who is unpopular, and especially if the war is the major source of the unpopularity. They haven't a majority in favor of any such moves, but they will if the report in September is sufficiently gloomy, or if the fighting in 2008 shows no signs of letting up.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 25, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK
What the hell are you talking about, Marler? Congress can't "order drawdowns on its own initiative;" all it can do is defund the war

It is certainly not the case that Congress's power over the conduct of war begins and ends with the Taxing and Spending power.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 25, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

I`m curious as to why my earlier post hasn`t appeared as of this moment

It pointed out that Dick & George`s Excellent Adventure has been very successful & why

curious indeed

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact....Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - newshog@gmail.com


[Apologies. I had to go look for it, but I found it and published it. --Mod]

Posted by: daCascadian on June 25, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

When the military tell Bush that there aren't enough soldiers to keep up the occupation, Bush will enter the Paths of the Dead under the Dwimorberg and call upon the Men of the Mountains to follow him. I'm sure they'll be so impressed with his bravery and inspirational leadership that they'll follow him out to fight against al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents and the Shi'ite outlaw militias, and all the other splinter groups with a grudge or a cause in Iraq.

Posted by: cowalker on June 25, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

LOL.

Posted by: Disputo on June 25, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

" I've been hearing for at least the past couple of years that the military is close to the breaking point in Iraq, and yet that breaking point never seems to happen. "

I've also read that, mostly from military sources. Is it possible that we aren't being told how bad the situation really is?

Posted by: Steve J. on June 25, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Goals? GWB has *goals* wrt Iraq? This is the first time I have heard anything about that. What are these goals pray-tell?

"Victory", whatever that is. And "not no violence", or something like that.

Posted by: Qwerty on June 25, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

"They haven't a majority in favor of any such moves, but they will if the report in September is sufficiently gloomy"

It won't be. The Bush administration and Petraeus have already made that quite clear. And you'll be right there with them, Matthew, commenting on the "signs of progress" and insisting that we give "the surge" a few more months.

Posted by: PaulB on June 25, 2007 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Two words: Viet Iraq.

George Cheney does not want this war pinned on him as a loss. We will not leave Iraq unit after Jan, 2009.

Posted by: decaffeinated on June 25, 2007 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Has the military really given Bush a firm April deadline? I haven't heard this anywhere else, but it would certainly explain Bush's sudden search for a withdrawal option. Stay tuned.

Stay tuned? STAY TUNED? For TEN FUCKING MONTHS?

Posted by: fourmorewars on June 25, 2007 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

They've been pulling this bait and switch for years and getting away with it. How gulible can people be. They have no intention of leaving that hell hole. They soften you up with these yes wev'e finally seen the light floaters to the press .... You get a lot of anonymous aides saying we understand our errors. The media falls for it hook line and sinker and then they escalate time and time again. The report in September will be more half empty - half full crap that ends up with give us one more year. Bush said he wasn't leaving on his watch and you should believe it.

Posted by: ALINE on June 25, 2007 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

[Apologies. I had to go look for it, but I found it and published it. --Mod]

Thank yee, thank yee

I realized after I posted it that it had too many links but sometimes those links make the point

Thanks again

“Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.” - William James

Posted by: daCascadian on June 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

I think the whole deal about the Republicans coming around finally is pure political theater. I think there are Republican 'lead them on' meetings behind closed doors. What is more I think Bush administration officals leak false stories about what the Bush administration is contemplating as part of the political theater. In the crunch the Republican Senators are going to support Bush and the Democrats are going to be shown to be powerless once again to stop Bush which is exactly the point.

Posted by: apollo on June 26, 2007 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Norman - what does support for the troops have to do with support for the mission? Anyway, the endgame has already started:
Lugar

Posted by: Andy on June 26, 2007 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

why wait for the draft, norman? enlist today.

Posted by: merlallen on June 26, 2007 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie (D-Wussville): Promise you'll hold the football this time?

Lucy (R-Cloudcuckooland): It's time we work together. Would I lie to you?

Posted by: geo on June 26, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie (D-Wussville): Promise you'll hold the football this time?

Lucy (R-Cloudcuckooland): It's time we work together. Would I lie to you?

Posted by: geo on June 26, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

"Hmmm. April is a drop dead date? I've been hearing for at least the past couple of years that the military is close to the breaking point in Iraq, and yet that breaking point never seems to happen. This is an unusually flat statement, though."

The unthinkable may actually happen here, and the military may actually break.

In 1918 the Germans were winning WWI. They were on the offensive right up till the time when Gen. Hindenburg went to the Kaiser and told him that the war was lost, they couldn't fight any more.

Iraq is different, because the U.S. isn't totally without resources, but by April and May it may well be impossible to extend tours or do anything else and Bush may be forced by the total drop in Republican support in Congress to start withdrawing troops.

What happens if the military situation gets out of hand? What if the Shiites join in attacking us and cutting the supply lines to Bagdhad?

In fact, these sorts of nightmare scenarios with American forces trapped in Iraq in a kind of wild Tet Offensive situation where the entire country is totally boiling out of control and supply lines are cut by raging Shiite militias is one of the key reasons there is so much resistance within the military to Cheney's mad, mad scheme to bomb Iran.

The idea that Bush just will defy everybody and rely upon the support of Dick Cheney, his wife and his dog makes psychological sense -- well, he might very well get his way if he can only make things go so badly wrong in Iraq that nobody can talk about withdrawal.

If the military is locked into a Korean war "fight for the Pusan perimeter" type of engagement the very chaos might make withdrawal impossible.

Of course, the genocidal levels of carnage needed just to maintain control at that point will make the rest of the world totally view us as Nazis for generations to come, but that won't matter inside the beltway.

Posted by: Cugel on June 27, 2007 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly