You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Political Clash Over War Plan Analyzed
2007-09-05
April may become the new September when it comes to deciding whether to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, if President Bush's senior advisers have their way. But Congress might not stand for it.

Since Bush ordered the deployment of some 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in January, he urged Congress to give the new plan until at least September to work. Accordingly, this month became a deadline among lawmakers for substantial progress, including several Republicans who said they were wary of Bush's military strategy but agreed for the most part to bite their tongues until then.

Now, administration officials are recommending Bush stand by his war strategy until the spring, and Bush is considered unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year. Officials familiar with the assessment spoke on condition of anonymity to describe decisions not yet publicly released. Read that last sentence again.

The suggestion is a bold one, considering Republicans lost control of Congress last year because of voter dissatisfaction on the war and polls show Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war. There could be a revolt. On the other hand, we might win the war.

Also, in recent months, leaving out the month of August GOP support for the war deteriorated with the latest challenge coming from Sen. Norm Coleman. Coleman, R-Minn., said pulling out a small number of troops by the end of the year would prove to Iraqi leaders that U.S. aid was not a blank check.
Yeah. Like we proved it to the Germans, Japanese, and Koreans, right?
"I've been searching - is there another way to kind of hammer the point? I think the message has to be sent," he told reporters Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday during a trip to Australia, Bush restated his view that decisions about troop levels should be based on recommendations from military commanders. He noted that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would be delivering progress reports soon enough.

"Whether or not that's part of the policy I announce to the nation ... why don't we see what they say and then I'll let you know," Bush said.

Republican support likely will hinge on Petraeus' testimony next week. If he can convince lawmakers that the security gains won in recent months are substantial and point toward a bigger trend - and a promise of major troop reductions soon - GOP members might be willing to hold out until spring.

They also might be persuaded to wait until April if Bush agrees to a small, symbolic drawdown of troops by the end of the year, as is suggested to the White House by Coleman and Sen. John Warner, an influential Republican on security matters.

But that would be the best case scenario we could envision in our tiny, little AP minds for Bush in a Congress already gearing up for the 2008 election season. For their part, Democrats will use the previous unpopularity of the war against Republican candidates, including in the presidential election. Support for cutting off money for the war also is likely to grow, says the AP crystal ball if Bush insists on keeping troops in Iraq at heightened levels through spring.
Page 2 of the prognostications at link.
Posted by:Bobby

#3  You are a gem, JosephM. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-05 23:46  

#2  Its no secret that mainstream/ordinary Amers like short wars - by this scope Amers want Iran + Radical Islam-Terror defeated quickly = imploded/regime changed quickly. US ENTRENCHMENT > IMO Dubya's probs here are notsomuch the Dems, but the desires [ read - policy timelines] of Amers = Amer voters for short wars. AS LONG AS THE USA IS "WINNING" THE WOT, AND NO NEW 9-11's OCCUR, ANTI-US/GOP POLS, etal. WILL MOSTLY SUPPOR DUBYA - PCORRECTNESS RULES THE USG-NPE AND THAT MEANS "USA/DUBYA FOREVER" [read -for now} - you know, TREASON + GLOBAL NEPOTISM. As said times before, the only real issue here is minor redux-in-force levels in the ME as per [flux]USG budgeted appropriations.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-09-05 20:39  

#1  Hey! How could it be a dupe? It was datelined 5:35 a.m., September 5, and posted less than 30 minutes later, whilst it was still hot and fresh!

Unless, of course, the AP relabels its' meat.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-09-05 08:12  

00:00