Support Our Troops

President Bush on Thursday ordered an indefinite halt in U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq after July, embracing the key recommendations of his top war commander. Bush said Gen. David Petraeus will "have all the time he needs" to consider when more American forces could return home.

  Yahoo

Ten thousand years if John “Punk” McNasty gets in and has his way.

But, hey, George is not without sympathy for the troops. He’s going to revert the tour length back to the usual 12 months from the increased 15-month tour they’ve been getting. However, that will not begin until August. And it won’t apply to those are already there.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Hey, Troops! Surprise! (Again)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday endorsed, for the first time, the idea of pausing the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq this summer.

"A brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," Gates told reporters after meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Petraeus has indicated in recent weeks that he wants a "period of evaluation" this summer to assess the impact on Iraq security of reducing the U.S. military presence from 20 brigades to 15 brigades.

Of that five-brigade reduction, only one has departed thus far. The last of the five is to be gone by the end of July.

  Yahoo

Was.

Got their hopes up again, didn't they? Or maybe not. Maybe they no longer hope.

The Marines Want Out

The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.

The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.

The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.

[...]

It is not clear exactly how many of the marines in Iraq would be moved over. But the plan would require a major reshuffling, and it would make marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan, in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq.

  NY Times

One: Did they toss a coin to see who had to stay in Iraq? And, two: There are 25,000 Marines in Iraq. Would this count toward the 30,000 troops from the surge that they are talking about “reducing” the forces in Iraq with? I thought maybe those would be going to Iran, but then again, it wouldn’t take 30,000 to bomb the place to Hell.

It is not clear whether the Army would support the idea. But some officials sympathetic to the Army said that such a realignment would help ease some pressure on the Army, by allowing it to shift forces from Afghanistan into Iraq, and by simplifying planning for future troop rotations.

The Marine proposal could also face resistance from the Air Force, whose current role in providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan could be squeezed if the overall mission was handed to the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines would bring a significant force of combat aircraft to that conflict.

And free up the Air Force for Iran.

....and hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Fox News Spin

Spin doesn't get any spinnier than this. From the TPM Cafe: Fox News reported that 52 Senators voted not to bring home the troops.

"By a 52-47 vote, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have started bringing troops home within 120 days of passage."

Wrong. They didn't get to vote on that bill. As Eric Kleefeld points out, what actually occurred was that 52 Senators voted not to block a vote on the troop withdrawal amendment. Unfortunately, they needed 60 votes to even be able to vote on the idea of bringing the troops home.

So, the only thing we know about those 52 Senators is that they were 1) ready to vote yea or nay on withdrawing the troops, or 2) felt pretty sure the 60 votes needed to lift the block would not be reached and they could safely say they were ready to vote without actually having to prove it. What we certainly don't know is what Fox is telling us: 52 Senators rejected troop withdrawal.

I know the whole thing is a little convoluted, but I guess what I don't know is whether the Fox reporters and editors are too simple-minded to understand what happened, or they know and are simply spinning it the way they want people to see it.

....but hey, say what you want....you will anyway.

Update: David Kurtz has a runner-up.

Billmon discusses the pull-out timetable leak

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

I'm thinking that the "leaked" timetable might have been the opening offer in a covert round of haggling with the Iraqi insurgents -- the goal being not a peace treaty (who would sign it?) but a "decent interval," or at least a breathing space, that would allow the Pentagon to draw down its forces in Iraq without triggering a complete descent into anarchy and civil war.

If you think about it, it makes a certain amount of sense. What other way could such an offer be communicated to the various factions and gangs in the Iraqi insurgency, in a way that would be accepted as genuine? How else could the administration (and their faithful sidekicks, the Brits) control the timing and content of the message, while leaving themselves room to walk away if the offer is spurned?

Most importantly: How else do you negotiate with the terrorists, without suffering the immense humiliation and demoralization of being seen to publicly negotiate with the terrorists?

OK, so I've been reading too many John LeCarre novels. Still, the timing of this leak is otherwise a bit puzzling -- after the British election, when it might have done some immediate good for Blair, and well in advance of the 2006 congressional campaign season, when it would do the most good for the Cheneyites.

Call me paranoid, but my hypothesis still sounds reasonable to me. However, if the leak really was an offer, the insurgents may have already mailed back their reply. And it looks like the two sides are still pretty far apart:

BAGHDAD—We woke today to the muted sounds of thumps and booms. One big one, followed by a smaller one. Then mortars flew over our home. It was another attack on the Green Zone . . .

More...