Rumors of March Troop Withdrawal

My apologies if this is a dupe.

I saw this on Calpundit via Atrios

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002522.html

October 29, 2003

A MARCH SURPRISE?

<SNIP>

Yesterday Megan McArdle wrote a column in which she said this:

There are actually rumors that the White House is contemplating accelerating our departure, which seems lunatic to even discuss when the country doesn't appear to have a functioning anything.

That sounded odd to me. I'm hardly one to give this administration the benefit of the doubt, but I haven't heard anything from either Bush or his advisors that makes me think they're planning on pulling out of Iraq. So what's up?

Just to make my thoughts crystal clear: it wouldn't surprise me if the Bushies declared victory and started pulling out early next year. Unlike Bush's admirers, I view him as a strongly poll-driven man who undertakes only policies that he thinks are widely popular and risk free. If public support for Iraq goes in the tank, I think he's the kind of person who would indeed cut and run.

But that's just psychoanalysis. I don't have any evidence that they're really thinking along these lines.

But then this morning, almost like magic, I came across this story in The Hill, which makes it sound like Republicans are getting very nervous indeed about the war, and this post by Josh Marshall in which he says that fear of an early withdrawal is widespread among both Democrats and hawkish conservatives. So obviously something is going on, and the idea of an early pullback from Iraq is Topic A among Washington insiders at the moment.

Realistically I think this is pretty much impossible.

Leaving is very possible.

saying there were to be no more casualties after March

bad PR and all that...

more organized and coordinated. The attacks will become deadlier and more frequent. If anything, we've already been through the best parts of the occupation. It only gets worse from here.

will not stop in time, no matter how many times he stamps his feet and cries to Condi. Even Rove knows that they cannot proclaim success against this type of backdrop.

the powers that be can spend that $87 Billion that fast? In 5 months? They can magically create a democracy in Iraq, just like that? Create a mail system, zip code system, garbage system, build and repair schools, repair the infrastructure, build an army, build a police force and get those all important oil wells flowing to so they can pocket the $$$$$....all in 5 months? Please. If they do that, they had NO intentions of "rebuilding" Iraq. JMCPO

That is to say, spread this rumor far and wide. I, too, have seen Lil George's chimperial pronouncement that he wanted no further combat deaths after March 2004. Well, rumors can be cut both ways, and it's time we used that fact to our advantage.

I'd like to see this corrupt administration actually telling the people the truth for a change, and having to scotch a rumor is as likely as anything to get them to have to issue statements about why we're really in Iraq. It also increases public dissatisfaction with the course they're on.

Screw Lil George -- we're taking him out in November 2004!

He is dead in the water. He'll catch so much flak from ALL sides that it will be unbelievable. There will be those who are in favor of the war and occupation who will nail him for failing to finish the job, people in the middle who will be demanding why so much blood and treasure was expended for nothing, and then us who will continue as usual except we will use the blood and treasure plus demanding to know WHY he destroyed our national prestige for a botched job. He will go down in flames if he pulls out in March, or anytime before a stable gov't is established.

No deaths after March? Does he calculate that's enough time for people to forget so he can be "re-elected"?

Reminds me of Ford, calculating how much each death per auto would cost.

I shudder.


Cher

I've maintained that declaring victory and cutting and running is option the admin. is at the very least considering. I posted about this months ago. It would certainly fit their M.O.

Let's look at the implications:

They would have to give up the oil, for the moment. They could always re-invade though. That in itself is good for them. Another future war on the backburner.

But how much of a loss would giving up the oil be?

They've already stolen hundreds of billions and enriched Halliburton and Bechtel, so they're ahead of the game in that respect. There are stories floating that SH greatly exaggerated the size of his reserves and maybe the oil pumping infrastructure is so dilapitated that rebuilding it under current conditions wouldn't be worth it.

Perhaps instead of completely cutting and running they would retreat to a few fortified bases and ignore the rest of the country, that way they could still maintain a strategic military presence to conduct future operations from.

Yup, I could see them doing the following:

Throw together a constitution, hold a sham of an election then wash their hands of the matter and retreat to a few fortified postions and claim victory. When the country continues to dissolve into chaos they can say "well, we did all we could, it's up to the Iraqi people now"

is supposed to dry up? for the troops atleast.

guess where the rest will be going.


two clues

starts with halli
ends with burton

That's when there will be no more troops to replace the troops leaving, leaving Shrubby's gang with unpleasant options:

1. Don't send the troops home--a VERY unpopular option. Sure vote loser.

2. Draft--also very unpopular and it's too late to get new troops in place by March. Also a sure vote loser.

3. Declare victory and run. Also good for the election. However, with the escalating violence in Iraq, if they run, it will look like the Iraqis drove us out. Don't know if their constituancy could stand for that. This is probably also a vote loser.

Make sure the only thing people think and talk about is war, and then start rumors that you're going to withdraw the troops.

Of course, March is a little too early. But, interesting nonetheless.

to just cut and run for purely political reasons. It would be a reasonable gamble (if you are a cold-hearted treasonous bastard) no matter how bad things got in Iraq, they could count on the Corporate Media to all but ignore it, and the average moran voter not to care. It would take away Bush*'s foreign policy incompetence away from the Dems (leaving only his domestic policy incompetence).

delayed until after the Rethug convention in September 2004. For maximum effect, Bush will do a prime-time network making the announcement, withdrawals to begin in mid-October (only a few hundred troops at first). Then, shortly after being re-elected as the peace and security president, the withdrawals will end.

And put them into Iran. :scared:

The Iraqis have been given a deadline to write their Constitution, they're being "encouraged" to help with intelligence, their police force and new army training are being "fast-tracked", they want to get more Iraqis at the borders, and the bushies are talking about taking the WMD searchers and putting them on counter-insurgency.

They want out of there pretty badly, and they only have a small window of opportunity to get that done before the election is in full swing. I've been expecting Iraq to begin to fall off the front pages by the New Year in the same way Afghanistan did simply because it's turned into a political albatross - not at all what they expected and not at all what they are prepared to deal with.

The thing to remember is this - they do NOT care about ANYTHING except winning in 2004, and EVERYTHING they do and say is geared towards that, and THAT ALONE. They thought invading Iraq would help them WIN in 2004, and now they see it will NOT, so they WILL cut and run...but not before paving the way with massive doses of public relations...by the New Year ALL good conservative pundits will be calling for our withdrawal by spring, and the good little 'Merikans will nod their pointed heads and say bush is a great leader.

The key to understanding the bush administration is - they don't do policy, they do politics. If getting out of Iraq by March is good politics, then that is what they're going to do.