The Politics of a Pull-Out
Operation Withdrawal Scam
By NORMAN SOLOMON
MUCH, MUCH More:Norman Soloman, Counter-PunchA few days ago, the White House launched a new phase of its propaganda siege for the Iraq war.
The opening salvo came on July 27, when the commander of American forces in Iraq said that continuation of recent trends would make possible "some fairly substantial reductions" of U.S. troop levels in the spring and summer of 2006. Those reductions, Gen. George Casey proclaimed, will happen "if the political process continues to go positively and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going."
Gen. Casey's statement, which made big news, was the start of a media offensive likely to last for the next 15 months, until the congressional elections. We might call it Operation Withdrawal Scam.
Overall, the strategy is double-barreled: Keep killing in Iraq while hyping scenarios for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
President Bush has always made a show of rejecting calls for a pullout timetable. Yet the current media buzz about possible withdrawal from Iraqis not without precedent. Some appreciable publicity along similar lines came last fall -- from a journalistic source who has eagerly done some of Karl Rove's dirtiest work.
"Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year," Robert Novak wrote in a column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. "This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go."
Novak's column did not stop there. With a matter-of-fact tone, it reported: "The military will tell the [U.S. presidential] election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials."
That assessment from "well-placed sources in the administration," trumpeted by Novak's column at the start of the fall campaign, received some media pickup at the time. And Novak didn't let it rest. He followed up with an Oct. 7 piece that asserted: "Nobody from the administration hasofficially rejected my column." In no uncertain terms, Rove's most useful columnist stood behind his claim that Bush's policymakers believed "U.S.troops must leave Iraq" in 2005.
While the Bush campaign denied Novak's claim, it was helpful to the president. He continued his resolute warrior posturing, while the deniable "leak" falsely signaled flexibility and fresh thinking that could lead to aU.S. exit strategy for the Iraq war.
Still pledging not to "cut and run," the White House can gain from spin that indicates withdrawal is much more likely and more imminent than previously believed. A double-barreled approach -- continuing the wareffort while suggesting that a pullout is on the horizon -- aims to providea wishful Rorschach blob to commentators and voters.
During the next 15 months, political benefits will beckon for the Bush administration to keep saying things that seem to foreshadow a drastic reduction of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Floated withdrawal scenarios will be part of an enormous hoax.
As the war drags on and U.S. public opinion polls show widespread unhappiness about it, Republicans in Congress will be eager for media coverage to become more reassuring before next year's November elections. That's where Operation Withdrawal Scam comes in.
Last edited by Nbadan; 08-08-2005 at 11:40 PM.
The plan all along is to leave on our terms. Not the enemies or the media's terms. There are conditions to leaving. If all goes to plans we will start cutting down. I am sure we will have at least 1-3 bases in Iraq for the next 20 years. So it's not like we will leave altogether.
Ya know, I'm not so concerned about the 10 or so military bases the U.S is rumored to be building in Iraq, heck, we still have bases in Saudi Arabia and other strange places the go unused. However, Iraq is sitting on billions of barrels of untapped oil. Reportedly, the second largest known reserve in the world. For whatever reason we went into Iraq, US companies have a strangle-hold on the oil and they ain't ever letting go.
Pulling out is 100% though, abstinence is really the best way to go.
Seriously we can't leave because the US has done so much to Iraq they have to stabilize the situation.
I was in support of Bush up until Iraq.
After 9/11, action needed to be taken, and we went after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Much good became of this action. Afghanistan is not a major military up like Iraq has been. The most important reason is because we had the support of the people of Afghanistan. They fought along side of allied forces to oust the fundamentalists. We had their moral and military support. Also, proper military planning took place, and it showed.
Then came Iraq. First of all, the planning for this war was piss poor. Rumsfeld acted like a ing Nazi, firing Army Secretary Thomas White and forcing out General Eric Shinseki for disagreeing with him on what it would take to get the job done. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations as well, but Rummy and Bush didn't listen. Of course nobody working under Rumsfeld would have disagreed with him after White and Shinseki were forced out. So here we had Bush and Rummy running the show despite notable and relevant detractors.
So the war begins and we capture Saddam. After that, the terrorist forces started to target people who were in support of a new Iraqi govenment. What did Bush's administration say? It was a small band of insurgents that would be dealt with so that the country of Iraq could move on. Well, two years later these "small" band of insurgents are still wreaking havoc on the country of Iraq and are costing the lives of hundreds of soldiers. No true working exit plan is in place (just speculatory plans), and the situation is not getting any better.
you said pull out.
What I don't understand is if the US and Iraqi forces have killed as many insurgents as reported why is the insurgency getting stronger instead of weaker?
In Jan. and Feb. of this year the estimated number of insurgents was 18,000 then fell to 16,000 in March only to rise again to the latest figure of "No more than 20,000" last month.
Looks like we are long way off of being to pull out of Iraq.
Joe if I may go off topic for a bit here.
I was a kid back in the 60s and recall watching the nightly news and they would report the casualties from the Vietnam war. There would be dozens of Americans reported killed whereas the enemy would have thousand, sometimes tens of thousands reported killed in action. With a child's logic, I used to think the war can't last much longer because eventually we will have killed them all. (gimme a break, I'm talking about when I was between 6 and 8 years old)
Back on topic. Rummy was rattling his saber the other day about insurgent arms coming from Iraq. Where the was the reporter that would have asked him why the border with Iraq is not secured? Recall, he was the one that did not want the larger number of boots on the ground. His generals for the most part said it would take more troops then we planned to send.
This stuff about drawing the number of troops down is for political consumption only. Polls show BushCo is in the ter regarding American confidence in their running this abortion of a policy called Operation Iraqi Freedom. '06 looms and BushCo has to go back into campaign mode to ensure they hang onto the House. The Senate is likely safe for the Grand Ole Corrupt Party but the House may actually be in play.
Expect "talk" about reduction in force over there. Expect smears of OIF vets that speak out against the war. Expect smears of people like Cindy Sheehan. It will begin to end if Karl Rove is marched out of the White House in handcuffs......
You are correct sir! I'm assuming that the insurgents are able to recruit as fast as they are losing them?
The insurgency continues to grow for a number of reasons. There is the right wings favorite excuse, the foreigners. The homegrown ones are multiplying too. Whenever we go after insurgent safehouses or other hiding spots, often civilians are killed. The families of these civilians become fresh fodder for the insurgency.
With Sunnis also attacking Shia, you are beginning to see Shia retaliation. The Shiites are beginning to get pissed and the civil war boiling pot is simmering.
Cynical best bet: Withdraw to the Kurd controlled area, take the Kirkuk oil fields, establish an independent Kurd nation, build American military bases there and let the Sunnis, Shia and Iranians slug it out for the rest of Iraq. (I'm not being serious here but the Kurds are the closest hope we have to a pro-American government coming out of this mess.)
Look..it's a different world now than it was then...
Back then the US was operating under the Democrat Truman Doctrine which dicated America would give finanacial aid and military support to free peoples everywhere, IE fight communism.
The problem arose when Democratic President Truman, perhaps feeling the guilt of when he ordered two Atomic Bombs dropped on Japan, wanted to fight wars more humanely and covertly. EG...Like when he morphed the OSS into the CIA...not to mention when Democrat President Truman gave aid to the French to maintain their brutal colonial rule in VietNam.
The morphing of the OSS into the CIA would be the cause of most of our middle east problems...mainly beginning when Democrat President Carter first let the Islamic revolution sieze Iran...and later when Democrat President Carter gave refuge to the Shah, thus enraging the new Islamic Government in Iran. And it really became bad when Democrat President Clinton let Al Qaeda take root in Afghanistan...not to mention when Democrat President Clinton sold our nuclear technology to China...and Democratic President Clinton didn't take the Sudanese up on their offer of Bin Laden on a Silver platter...
Of course all of our problems in the Middle East that Democrats complain about today(support of Israel) could have been prevented if Democrat President Truman hadn't beent he first to recognize Israel.
But I digress...back to the Democrat Truman Doctrine War of Viet Nam...when Democrat President LBJ took us into Viet Nam...rather than attempting to win the war...Demcrat President LBJ tried to fight a guerilla war both humanely and ideologically...when really we should have just kicked the living out of the Viet Cong...but then again...if not for Democratic President Truman's support of the French colonial rule there...the Viet Namese probably would have been much more trusting of US intervention and not as pro communist.
Much like the Iranians would have been much more trusting if not for the Democrat formed CIA intervening in Iranian affairs.
Anyway...but the time Replublican President Nixon pulled us out of the Viet Nam War, the goal of winning the way the way Republican Eisenhower won the Korean War, or Republican President Reagan won the Cold war, was pretty much shot...future Democrat Presidential Candidate Kerry had already given aid and comfort to the Communist Government of Viet Nam and had promised them he would do everything in his power to help them win the Viet Nam War and make it easier for them to slaughter the millions of Pro Western Vietnamese that lived there.
But anyway...to make a long story short...Vietnam would have been won easily if the Democrats had just taken a page from their own history, like when they fought to maintain slavery during the Civil War...and just viewed these people as enemies and not PR devices.
Last edited by whottt; 08-09-2005 at 05:21 PM.
We won the Korean War?
Since the Korean war was started by the North Koreans trying to reclaim the entire Korean peninsula and eradicate the North/South division set up at the end of WWII, and the US goal was to prevent that...I'd say yes...but then again, I'm not a dumbass.
victory = status quo.
Some have higher standards, but then again the Korean War could've been "won" years before had Macarthur not been such a dumbass.
And the war never really ended anyway.
If we were only fighting the North Koreans in the Korean War, then yes -- it was a victory and would've been a total victory with a unified Korea if not for those pesky Chinese. The Korean War became a US/China conflict that ended in stalemate, pure and simple. China probably gained more than anyone from that conflict in international stature, as they proved they could hang with the US and protect their interests against the west -- something they had not been able to do for many years up til then.
Contrulations, you now understand the 1st part of the Democrat Truman Doctrine.
Since you understand that...do you also understand why the body count was so high in VietNam? Connect the dots.
Not the Democrat Truman Doctrine.Some have higher standards,
I didn't realize MaCarthur was President during the Korean war...Eisenhower wasn't even President until we actually won it.but then again the Korean War could've been "won" years before had Macarthur not been such a dumbass.
Why don't you take a wild guess at who the CIC was during that time frame you mentioned.
Our objectives at that time were achieved...And the war never really ended anyway.
I personally can't think of a ing reason why I would want to see another American life wasted on the thankless and useless Koreans...At least the Iraquis have Oil. All the Koreans do is try and steal gold medals.
Besides...taking North Korea would have been an invasion and we would have been occupiers, and I know how much you are against that.
And hopefully our occupation of South Korea will end soon and you will have something to the shut the up about.
Uh China wanted a communist Korean peninsula...they didn't get it.
As for their ability to hang with us...um China can't even hang with ing Japan. Yeah they can surrender against a foreign military power in their own backyard...but our goal wasn't to take North Korea. It was never to take North Korea.
As for their ability to hang with us...I doubt very seriously they can hang with their own population if push comes to shoved...
But no doubt...if not for us South Korea would be annexed, and probably will be when we get tired of being imperialistic occupiers, which means Taiwan>South Korea
We were already there. China kicked us out.Besides...taking North Korea would have been an invasionAnd you don't realize what Macarthur did in Korea. i understand your ignorance. Typical.I didn't realize MaCarthur was President during the Korean war.Thanks for being honest about that for once, Black Bush.At least the Iraquis have Oil.Wrong again, dumbass. I have said time and time again that if we were going to invade Iraq we were going to occupy it for a very long time. Once we invaded, that was it. There is no turning back now. Any talk of pulling out is simply lies. There is no way we are going to pull out without a guarantee that things won't go to and there will be no guarantee that things won't go to without us for years, maybe decades. We made our very expensive bed and now we are going to lie in it -- just like in Korea except there will probably be an internal civil war soon. I hope the oil will be worth it.Besides...taking North Korea would have been an invasion and we would have been occupiers, and I know how much you are against that.
Uh...China didn't do and likely would have been nuked off the face of the planet if not for the Russians.
Tried to win it?And you don't realize what Macarthur did in Korea. i understand your ignorance.
And I don't think you realize what Truman wanted MacAthur to do.
Why don't we look at the Chump contradictions in the last few posts.
On the one hand he says we lost a war by restoring it's SK's boundaries to where it was before North Korea crushed them...then he says we could have won it...then he says we couldn't beat China...just shut the up.
Yeah...and in 10 years when Iraq can produce Oil at a relatively productive level you'll see a very happy whottt.Typical.Thanks for being honest about that for once, Black Bush.
So? It's worked in Japan, the Phillipines, France, Germany, Korea, Italy, Guam, Spain, the UK....Wrong again, dumbass. I have said time and time again that if we were going to invade Iraq we were going to occupy it for a very long time.
Oh...I see...you have a problem with countries that aren't 3rd world holes...we'll don't worry...we're going to give South Korea back to Mao.
Um...I don't recall the Bush administration ever giving a pull out date. Or making any commitments to the future of Iraq.Once we invaded, that was it. There is no turning back now. Any talk of pulling out is simply lies.
If the Iraqui's had wanted us to there...we damn sure wouldn't be pulling out...why in the would we?
You are just an idiot...I bet if I look around I can find posts by you saying we were going to install a puppet government as well.
It's more than we got out of Korea....well that, and we got to kill a quarter million communist chinese or so.There is no way we are going to pull out without a guarantee that things won't go to and there will be no guarantee that things won't go to without us for years, maybe decades. We made our very expensive bed and now we are going to lie in it -- just like in Korea except there will probably be an internal civil war soon. I hope the oil will be worth it.
Except kick us out of North Korea.China didn't doI said it ended as a stalemate with China, as it did.On the one hand he says we lost a war by restoring it's SK's boundaries to where it was before North Korea crushed themWe could have tried to keep the Chinese out of it, but MacArthur wanted to invade China and made no secret about it.then he says we could have won it...then he says we couldn't beat China.And Vietnam....Tell me when we invaded and occupied the homelands of France, Spain and the UK and established new govenments there. I'd like to know more about it.So? It's worked in Japan, the Phillipines, France, Germany, Korea, Italy, Guam, Spain, the UK.Neither do I, that's my point. Now you can pretend it was yours all along. You're welcome.Um...I don't recall the Bush administration ever giving a pull out date.Care to rephrase that, ducks?If the Iraqui's had wanted us to there...we damn sure wouldn't be pulling out...why in the would we?You are welcome to try. Please go right ahead.You are just an idiot...I bet if I look around I can find posts by you saying we were going to install a puppet government as well.
Chump...you have zero credibility on this subject...plus you are ignorant of the Korean War. Heavily ignorant...and contradictory.
But what really makes you a in all of this...
You would deny the Iraquis what "your relatives" in Korea have had for 50 years(and on the good side for nearly 20 years)...
You've got no problem with the US military over there defending your relatives and keeping them free...but you are critical of it when it comes to doing the same for the Iraquis... you. You are an asshole. And your view is incredibly self centered.
There is something very fascist about your stance...I can't put my finger on it...but it's there.
Didn't the Korean War (well it really wasn't a war, it was a conflict) but didn't it end in a cease fire...a draw basically. I mean, at anytime the Korean War can start where it left off. When Truman sent U.S. forces (along with U.N. forces) to Korean, wasn't it to stop Communism from spreading...similiar to the philosophy Pres. Bush is following in sending U.S. troops to Iraq? To stop terrorism from spreading and the establish a democracy in the Middle East.
Truman Doctrine
Truman allowed the French to take control of Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh was aligned to the Communist party, also for political reasons because France would possibly refused cooperation in Post-War Europe which included defense from the Communist Bloc. Eisenhower followed the policies of the Truman administration without any change, until the French withdrew from Southeast Asia but Eisenhower still had money sent to South Vietnam in order to establish and maintain an anti-communist region in Asia.
Prior to Nixon withdrawing forces from Viet Nam, didn't he escalate the war after Johnson left office? The heavy bombing did not stop until after 1972 election. He slowly withdrew but
I just love it when everything is a Republican vs. Democrat scenario. I see angel wings on the sides of Republicans.
This administration flip-flops its Iraq policies quicker than Ihop.
First it is "We will not issue and timeframe as to when US forces will begin to pull out of Iraq"...now it seems they are all talking about beginning to pull out next year.
Clearly not plan but to say what they need to prepare for the elections.
JM I like the cut of your jib.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
