If the New York Times report is accurate then it appears that the move is purely political:

Several administration officials said they hoped that if such a reduction were under way in the midst of the presidential campaign, it would shift the debate from whether American forces should be pulled out by a specific deadline — the current argument consuming Washington — to what kind of long-term presence the United States should have in Iraq.

“It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren’t sustainable in Iraq, they aren’t sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home,” said one administration official who has taken part in the closed-door discussions.

But other officials in Washington cautioned that any drawdown could be jeopardized by a major outbreak of new violence. Vice President Dick Cheney and others might argue that even beginning a withdrawal would embolden elements of Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias that have recently appeared to go underground.

Missing from much of the current discussion is talk about the success of democracy in Iraq, officials say, or even of the passage of reconciliation measures that Mr. Bush said in January that the troop increase would allow to take place. In interviews, many senior administration and military officials said they now doubted that those political gains, even if achieved, would significantly reduce the violence.

It does sound like the beginning of the end doesn’t it? However, we don’t know what’s motivating these unnamed administration officials or their position in the internal debate - or even if there is a debate. It could be trial balloon or misdirection. Besides, any number of events could shift our course between now and the presidential elections of 2008.

There should be some fallout from this story over the weekend that may be more revealing. As it stands now I’d have to say it may not be as dire as it sounds but it certainly fails to inspire confidence.

Bloggers React:

Daily Pundit
Tippy-toeing out of the deep end. Mookie must be thrilled. I know his Iranian Mullah bosses are.

Say Anything
Iraq is a fluid situation, and I’m not about to try and guess what the administration’s strategies will be a year or so from now. The media’s always reporting this stuff, though. “Bush is going to do this, Bush is considering that.” Ultimately it’s all just hysterical ninnyism from journalists far too high on their own importance.

Prairie Weather
The political maneuvers in Congress mimicking an effort to get us out of Iraq are just so much sword-play.

My Two Sense
I’m not sure what to think here. They wouldn’t have leaked this without a reason. Is this a trial balloon? Is it a way to fool democrats into continuing to give Bush what he wants?

The Purple State
This sounds an awful lot like another war in which the US sought to leave by pawning it off on a newly trained army.

Roger L. Simon
Not much more than a day after the military appropriations bill finally slogged through Congress without a troop withdrawal deadline, the NYT is locked and loaded with a new inside story on Iraq policy - White House Said to Debate ‘08 Cut in Iraq Troops by 50% “Said?” If that weasel-ish word right in the headline weren’t enough, how about this sentence, which is run as a full paragraph in itself? “The officials declined to be quoted for attribution because they were discussing internal deliberations that they expected to evolve over several months.” In other words, you’ll never be able to check the truth of this. By the time a decision is made this article will be irrelevant (and long forgotten) anyway - so don’t blame us if it turns out to be hooey. We’re all in the game of propaganda anyway… wink, wink.

TalkLeft
Shockingly (not), the NYTimes story makes NO mention of all of the past troop reduction plans the Bush Administration has floated. This is what you call stenographic journalism.

PoliPundit
But now to the big questions……..Is this being done for crass political reasons?

Ice Station Tango
If this is true, then maybe the activities behind the scenes of the supplemental spending bill worked out better for the Democrats, and America, than we all thought.

The Populist
Again, I say… How Convenient. He’ll surge the heck out of Iraq, right up till the 2008 Elections and begin a pull back, to make his party look good. This guy thinks he’s pretty darn slick. Too bad 75% of the United States aren’t buying into his Baloney!

Swampland
The split in the Bush Administration on middle east policy is going public. First we had Steve Clemons’ report yesterday about the Cheney v. The World split on Iran. Now we have a split between the Secs. Def and State, the Pentagon brass, the intelligence community, and possibly the President on one side and the Generals in the field–Petraeus and Odierno–and the GOP hawks (Cheney, McCain etc) on the other.

Captain’s Quarters
We cannot leave Iraq altogether and fight Islamist terrorism. They’re attempting to base themselves in western Iraq, with Syrian assistance. We can’t fight that by deploying to Okinawa and leaving the region to the radicals. This planning takes that reality and adapts our military approach to it. It should come as no surprise at all that the Pentagon and the White House have already begun thinking about the next phase of the war.

Post a Comment