As Dan Rather Would Say, “Courage”

Democrats apparently reacted “angrily,” according to The Washington Post, when reports surfaced this weekend that the Pentagon is considering withdrawal of troops in the near future. I didn’t see the Sunday morning talk shows (I rarely watch the frantic spinning and the general failure to listen on the part of the show hosts) upon which the adverb was based. I’ll take the reporters’ word for it.

But the Dems needn’t be angry. “Courage, troops.” The country is coming around to their point of view, and I’m beginning to feel like a minority. (O, wait a minute, I am an minority - a reality-based citizen.) It will apparently be the end of the day before we can look at the data, but more Americans are supporting a timetable for declaring victory and retreating.

The American public is sharply divided over whether to set a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as military casualties mount and the insurgency shows little sign of ending its bloody terror campaign, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

There are still more Americans who oppose withdrawal than support it, but the margin is dwindling. And the latest Post-ABC poll continues to show little backing for an immediate exit from Iraq: Nearly eight in 10 say the United States should keep troops in Iraq for at least six months.

The survey found that 47 percent of the country now favors setting a deadline for troops to exit from Iraq, up eight percentage points since December. Opposition to a firm timetable for withdrawal stands at 51 points, down from 60 percent seven months ago.

But if reports are true that a draw-down is likely before the elections, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin has it right.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the "worst-kept secrets in town" -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

"It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration," Levin said on "Fox News Sunday." "It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory."

Inoculation against an October surprise is to predict it -- loud and often. If Democrats want to minimize what is sure to be a Rove tactic, then predict it, belittle it, and in fact, demand it. Then when it materializes, they look predictable, belittled and crassly political.

Comments

[Brian]

Why then did throw out that "we may well have been greeted as liberators" canard?

[Bob]

The "preponderance of evidence" probably still goes your way today. It just takes a few, however, to wreak havoc. I don't think the majority of Iraqis are part of the insurgency, but it's significant. My guess it was at the time of the invasion, too. At the very least, it didn't take Sunnis long to figure out that they could get screwed.

[Brian]

Bob, you seem to have left out a fair amount of salient material. One might suspect that Iraqis with Kalshnikos and rocket launchers at that time were likely on Saddam Hussein's "payroll" in one way or another. I think the preponderence of the evidence goes my way.

I'm with you on the aid to Egypt. We don't seem to be getting too much for our $2bln a year. The backsliding on democratic reform is especially gauling. As for S.A., that would never happen. Too much havoc would be wreaked on the world economy. And then there all those nefarious ties between the Bush family and the House of Saud....;)

[Brian]

Huzzah! Larry Elder has more from the NYT story:

" ...Army and Marine Corps units moving into the districts of eastern Baghdad where many of the city's 5 million people live finally met the kind of adulation from ordinary Iraqis that American advocates of a war to topple Mr. Hussein had predicted....

"Much of Baghdad became, in a moment, a showcase of unbridled enthusiasm for America...

"American troops, but almost as much any Westerner caught up in the tide of people rushing into the streets, were met with scenes that summoned comparisons to the freeing of Eastern Europe 14 years ago....

"Shouts to the American soldiers of 'Thank you, mister, thank you,' in English, of 'Welcome, my friend, welcome,' of 'Good, good, good,' and 'Yes, yes, mister,' mingled with cries of 'Good, George Bush!' and 'Down Saddam!'...

"A middle-aged man pushed through a crowd attempting to topple a statue of Mr. Hussein outside the oil ministry with a bouquet of paper flowers, and passed among American troops distributing them one at a time, each with a kiss on the cheek.

"A woman with two small children perched in the open roof of a car maneuvering to get close to a Marine Corps unit assisting in toppling a Hussein statue outside the Palestine and Sheraton hotels, the quarters for foreign journalists, wept as she shouted, 'Thank you, mister, thank you very much.'...

link

[Bob]

Brian, I would hold Egypt responsible by first withholding aid. And I'd tell S.A. that unless a list of changes were forthcoming, inluding the closing down of extremistis schools, they would be on their own if attacked by Sadaam Hussein.

By the way, from the same story you quoted:

But reporters who crossed one of the deserted midtown bridges across the Tigris into the western area of the city discovered quickly that Mr. Hussein's hold has not been wholly broken.

Crossing the 14th of July bridge into the district of Atafiya, about five miles upriver from the Republican Palace compound that American troops seized on Monday, the reporters found themselves at least a mile north of the most advanced American positions on the west side of the river, in a neighborhood filled with angry, nervous-looking fedayeen -- the irregular forces who have been among the most relentless enemies of the Americans in their 300-mile drive from Kuwait.

One reporter, lulled into a false sense of security by a day of Iraqis vilifying Mr. Hussein, approached a group of youths at an intersection to ask how they felt.

"Bush good?" the reporter asked, using the English phrase that had become the mantra of the city's eastern districts to overcome the temporary absence of an interpreter.

The youths, quickly joined by older, more threatening-looking men with Kalashnikov rifles and shoulder-holstered rockets, responded with a hostility that could have been found almost anywhere in the city until dawn today.

"Bush down shoes!" the youths answered, one of them spitting on the ground, meaning that President Bush was good only for being trampled on. "America down shoes!"

[Brian]

Bob, how would you have had us hold Egypt and Saudi Arabia accountable? By the way nobody seems to remember, but we were greeted as liberators when we first invaded Iraq. Here's the opening of the story from the NYT on April 10th, 2003:

Saddam Hussein's rule collapsed in a matter of hours today across much of this capital city as ordinary Iraqis took to the streets in their thousands to topple Mr. Hussein's statues, loot government ministries and interrogation centers and to give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops....

I'd quote more of it, but I'm too cheap to pony up the four bucks. If you are so inclined, click here.

[Bob]

Let me throw a wrench into this discussion: Spreading democracy is a good thing. Overthrowing mass murderers is a good thing. Using our might to help suffering people is a good thing. But all in the right context.

I've said from the beginning: If we would have responded to the 9/11 attacks by attacking Afghanistan, engineering a just peace in the Middle East, and holding countries such as Egypt and Saudi Ariabia accountable for their repressive regimes, and then gone into Iraq, we may well have been welcomed as liberators.

[srfrjo]

If this duly elected Iraqi Gov't asks us to leave ASAP, can we reasonably say no?

If they did [say no], this whole thing would be exposed as the farce it really is. We're "spreading democracy" at the end of a gun and then don't even respect the requests of that same democratic society our soldiers are supposely dying to help create? It's almost as absurd as having an Administration so insitent on spreading democracy elsewhere while trampling its own Constitution at home. They won't even level with the American people about why we're there. Can anyone tell me why we're there?

Thanks for the apology in the other thread Brian, accepted and no worries.

[Brian]

Once the election is over, my guess is Rove is off to the next client.

Let's hope that he doesn't go to work for Sen. Allen.

[Bob]

"What if the Sunnis ask us to stay, while the Kurds and Shia are figuratively holding the door for us?"

That's a good question, Brian, although it's an improbable scenario.

Absent a hue and cry and constant reminder that an Oct. surpise is coming, what's the downside for the administration to at least make a partial pullout of about 20-30k troops? The remainder can also pull back. If the situation gets worse, well, that's for the next president to deal with, which is what Bush has already promised. If it goes well, he gets a boost for the rest of his second term. Once the election is over, my guess is Rove is off to the next client.

[Brian]

So, just how did that 2005 troop pullout go? Maybe more than domestic politics is at play here.

Seriously though, the first story that Bob cites appears to indicate that the drawdown/pullout/whatever has already begun. If we have 127k troops there now, that is about 10k fewer than we have generally had there. It's far fewer than than the approximately 160k troops that we had in Iraq at the beginning of this year for the latest election.

Here's the question that I find most interesting now: If this duly elected Iraqi Gov't asks us to leave ASAP, can we reasonably say no? What if it looks like it's just the prelude to massive anti-Sunni payback? What if the Sunnis ask us to stay, while the Kurds and Shia are figuratively holding the door for us?

[srfrjo]

Inoculation against an October surprise is to predict it -- loud and often. If Democrats want to minimize what is sure to be a Rove tactic, then predict it, belittle it, and in fact, demand it. Then when it materializes, they look predictable, belittled and crassly political.

Agreed. Democrats need to starting countering Rove's obvious and cliched tactics. Still, I'm not so sure all this talk of a withdrawal isn't completely hollow. They're masters at making the Dems look bad while they do the worst job possible. Check out this Novak quote Josh Marshall dug up from just before the 2004 election:

Novak, Sept. 20, 2004: "Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. 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 ... Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his present national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal."

Yeah. Mmm-hmm. This is good, too.