"I think we are winning. Okay? I think we're definitely winning. I think we've been winning for some time." - Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the Iraq War 04/26/05
"I just wonder if they will ever tell us the truth." - Harold Casey, Louisville, KY, October 2004.
I like Bill Arkin's blog on military affairs, and I quote it often. But lately he seems to be trying a little too hard to sound counter-intuitive. As in this post, where he (more-or-less) reassures us that the Bush administration is determined to draw down the US military presence in Iraq over the coming, well, sometime: The Calendar for Victory in Iraq Washington Post 06/27/06. He writes:
Here's what President Bush and Company are not saying: Before we leave Iraq, we will kill every last foreign fighter, neutralize the insurgency and destroy the sectarian militias.
It has been obvious since December that the president's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is to drawdown U.S. forces, and eventually to withdraw the vast majority, before any of the missions with which most Americans identify are accomplished.
When Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called the Iraq war an "open-ended commitment in Iraq," he was not only dead-wrong, he willfully ignored the truth about the Bush administration's policy and the U.S. military's acceptance of reality.
... A calendar is already in play, the clock is ticking.
Arkin even argues that Bush's plan - still concealed just like Richard Nixon's 1968 "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War remains secret until this day - is "a carefully calibrated balancing act that carries an implicit recognition of the limitations of American power, and of the American public's patience".
I'm sure that the administration would be happy for the public to think that. But I just don't see the signs of it. Arkin's reasons for thinking so involve some, shall we say, subtle assumptions:
Bush said yesterday that the decision on troop draw downs would be made by the Iraqi government with the U.S. military commanders in Iraq. Nowhere in his remarks, or in military chatter for that matter, is there any reference to turning corners post-Zarqawi, to strides being made in eliminating the violence, or in "defeating" the bad guys.
Or, those supposedly pregnant absent phrases could reflect a brief and ephemeral recognition that constantly declaring turning points and tipping points and so forth encourages more cynicism than hope in the public at this juncture.
Arkin doesn't use the now-iconic "six months from now" formulation. But he is essentially repeating the war fans' position here:
The Iraq calendar nonetheless is clear: Small changes in the U.S. force structure, together with a sharpened focus on difficult areas, such as al Anbar province, more joint U.S.-Iraqi operations and better sharing of intelligence hopefully will bear fruit. Violence will decrease or at least stay at current levels. If after x-months, the situation isn't worse, more forces can be withdrawn. If after y-months, Iraqi forces are performing well, even more American soldiers can go. U.S. forces ultimately (post-2007) will draw down to a small quick reaction capability with close-in intelligence to support Iraqi forces taking the lead, in x-cities and governorates, and eventually in all.
It may be a bad sign that Arkin in this post uses the Republican grammar whose purpose has always eluded me when he talks about "the Democrat plans". Or maybe I should say "Republic grammar". Has Arkin decided to become a flack for the "Republic Party"? I wouldn't say so based on this one post. But it is strange.
Referring to his interpretation of Bush's Iraq War secret plan, he makes a memorable point, though I'm not convinced this level of humility has actually been adopted by the Bush-Cheney-Rummy administration:
It is recognition that we can't follow the "old" strategy of fighting forever until the last "evil one" is killed.
We're not only on our way out of Iraq; we've just found a solution to end the war on terrorism.
"Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of." - George McGovern and Jim McGovern 06/06/05
No comments:
Post a Comment