White House Debating Whether To Announce "Intention" To Begin Withdrawing From Iraq Someday
File this one in the "I have some lovely real estate in Florida to sell you" department.
According to this morning's Times, White House officials are debating whether they should say that they "intend" to reduce troop levels in Iraq at some point or other:
White House officials fear that the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq strategy are collapsing around them, according to several administration officials and outsiders they are consulting. They say that inside the administration, debate is intensifying over whether Mr. Bush should try to prevent more defections by announcing his intention to begin a gradual withdrawal of American troops from the high-casualty neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities...Four more Republican senators have recently declared that they can no longer support Mr. Bush’s strategy, including senior lawmakers who until now had expressed their doubts only privately. As a result, some aides are now telling Mr. Bush that if he wants to forestall more defections, it would be wiser to announce plans for a far more narrowly defined mission for American troops that would allow for a staged pullback, a strategy that he rejected in December as a prescription for defeat when it was proposed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
So the White House is debating whether to announce that it has the "intention" of beginning a "gradual" withdrawal at some point.
This is very nice to hear, but according to The Times, the explicit goal here is merely to prevent GOP defections on actual legislation that would accomplish a pullout. So doesn't it seem likely that such a White House announcement would simply give GOPers the cover they need not to defect and thus not to support any actual withdrawal policies?
Sure, an announcement of this sort would give war opponents some more leverage. But it would also allow Republicans allegedly thinking about defecting to say, you know, "the Commander in Chief has said he intends to begin pulling out, so let's pay him deference and give him the time and flexibility he needs to do this right," yada yada yada.
Leaking this to the NYT serves a dual-purpose: it lets off steam (with no commitment for action) as you say. It also acts as a trial balloon for limited withdrawal, thereby lowering expectations among the right-wing base.
July 9, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
ah, yes, good point. hadn't thought about the right-wing-base angle.
July 9, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe folks here will recall Bush, Sr., announcing that he, Bush, was the candidate of change.
Didn't work.
Neither would such a strategy for junior.
Best, Terry
July 9, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember: the "road to hell" is paved with "intentions."
Any "intention" of this bunch is suspect.
July 9, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the leak reflects the frustration of some members of the White House staff with the costs of Bush's intransigence on the Republican Party.
But as Bob Woodward related to Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" last year, Bush has said:
"I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."
Congress needs to teach Bush a lesson about the power of the purse.
July 9, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
I'm not so sure, Terry, about whether it will 'work'. It might.
Such deceit and 'maneuvering' worked in 2002-03 to convince a then-compliant majority AND MANY OF THE SAME DEMOCRATS who are now, hopefully, but, so far, not indicatively, a bit wiser.
If their (the Democrats) shaky resolve, as displayed by this year's earlier confrontations on the war's funding, is not strengthened, it could very well work...to our dismay.
July 9, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There likely will be a modest drawdown and repositioning starting in the Spring and the Republican candidate will say he'd like to go a little faster down that path.
Unless, of course, Cheney gets his way and they obliterate Iran. Actually, both are possible simultaneously with U.S. troops in defensive positions on bases out of the reach of Shiite militias.
The questions being debated are can we be clever enough to get a Republican in so that we can carry on and, if not, how can we create a situation that will make it very, very hard for a Democrat to walk away from either Iraq or Iran. Bush, meanwhile, is waiting around to hear how the discussion turns out.
global citizen
July 9, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but see this op-ed
The Congress used the power of purse to stop aid to the contras. The neocons went ahead and it anyway. And Cheney believed that they were justified in engaging in activity that the Congress had expressly defunded.
This is why it is really not completely crazy to be talking about impeachment. It is not clear that, even the war were defunded, that the occupation would not continue. Do recall that the runup to the war was not funded--it was "reallocated" from other budgets.
July 9, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Far be it from me to pick a fight with someone who I am sure agrees with me most of the time, about most things . . . but JayAckroyd's remark that Cheney's long-standing desire to raise up presidential power and humble congressional power means "it is really not completely crazy to be talking about impeachment" is almost airlessly silly.
Yes, Jay. Of course, Jay. Did you figure that out for yourself, Jay? Good for you, and welcome aboard.
In fact, let me add that we who have been studying the situation for some time would go one step further. We say it is NOT only NOT completely crazy to think and talk impeachment , but that pursuing impeachment is the ONLY means Americans have of taking back their government from these wild-eyed corporatist Caesars. Period.
July 9, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
that road is paved only with good intentions, and I defy you to show me any intention of this administration that held up as good something other than its own continuation of unlimited power and the enrichment of its supporters.
Hell is too nice a place for this crowd.
July 9, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So they're thinking about contemplating having a discussion leading to setting up a committee to study the idea of floating the message that they might intend to reduce some unidentified number of troops at some undefined point in the future. Well, that's all I need to hear. Several more Friedman units please.
July 9, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, doesn't anyone remember they float a withdrawal trial balloon about every Freidman Unit or so?
January 2005
August 2005
November 2005
November 2006
May 2007
July 9, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink