Redeployment “could be very dangerous,” said Mullen
yesterday on Fox News.
But Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he would
be able to recommend more troop reductions this fall if conditions there continued
to improve.Asked about a hypothetical two-year withdrawal timeline, Mullen told “Fox
News Sunday, “I think the consequences could be very dangerous.”…
Of course it “could.”
On the other hand, Mitchell in Iraq:
“I have not heard a single blast.” – Andrea Mitchell
The other issue is what we risk if we don’t redeploy troops from Iraq in order
to turn the focus on Afghanistan, what will happen if this narco-state turns
completely failed state? What about Central Asia and what’s going on in Pakistan
right now?
Trying to spin John McCain’s very bad past few days doesn’t make the Pentagon
propaganda being offered true.
Jason
Zengerele captures a telling moment from “The Today Show.”
Vieira: “Senator Obama’s timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq
within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi
prime minister when he called it ‘the right timeframe for a withdrawal.’ He
has backed off that somewhat, but the Iraqis have not stopped using the word
timetable, so if the Iraqi government were to say — if you were President
— we want a timetable for troops being to removed, would you agree with that?”McCain: “I have been there too many times. I’ve met too many
times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on
conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that’s what happens
when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even
Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be — the agreement
between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states
is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it’s fragile,
and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word
of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround.
And by the way, we would have been out last march if Senator Obama’s original
wish would have been called for. Not 16 months from now, but last March. He
was wrong on the surge, he was wrong today when he says it didn’t succeed.
And obviously we have challenges in Afghanistan which will require more troops
and more NATO participation, but we can win. If we had lost in Iraq, we would
have risked a much wider war that would have put enormous challenges and burdens
on our military.” [Emphasis added.]
Obviously, no one is saying you should ignore General Petraeus, but there is
a larger sphere in view.
In the Bush administration, Rumsfeld started this politicization of the military,
where you’ve got no independence whatsoever from our military leaders, including those in the
field, with one political strategy enjoined from White House to Baghdad. As I’ve written several times, this goes against Goldwater-Nichols, which guaranteed the commander in chief would get politically independent military assessments. McCain
is obviously trying to use it to his benefit, utilizing Petraeus as a political
partner, which he’s more than willing to do. It has the added benefit of linking Republicans to the military in lock step, which as Sen. Jim Webb has said is not only wrong, but ignores the multi-layered political views of our troops.
Flashback to “The General as Salesman”, September 2007:
But it’s questionable whether even the smoothest-talking salesman could appease public opinion—or Petraeus’s Pentagon detractors—at this point. NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus. (snip)
John Arquilla, an intelligence and counterinsurgency expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, is even harsher in his assessment of Petraeus. “I think Colin Powell used dodgy information to get us into the war, and Petraeus is using dodgy information to keep us there,” he said. …
We all know what happened to Admiral Fallon.
However, make no mistake, this is mostly about neutering Al-Maliki, who
delivered a crushing blow to the Republicans this weekend by seconding, at the
very least, the Democratic view of redeployment. If Republicans don’t destroy this new reality out of Iraq, coming from al-Maliki, they’ll never win in November. Iraq and McCain’s mythical, not fact based, fantasy foreign policy superiority is all they’ve got. Petraeus knows this all too well.
“We’re fucked” – Marc Abminder, quoting an email from a Republican strategist who advises McCain, after Maliki endorsed Obama’s timetable.
One of the most important points in getting a Democrat elected in November
is to get the civilians making larger strategic decisions about national security.
We simply must also get away from the plodding, one crisis at a time philosophy of
Republicans. It doesn’t work in today’s assymetrical, multiple challenge world.
Whether Obama is your preferred candidate or not, there can be no doubt that
he no doubt gets that much.
Comments are closed.